^3w  *  MHctrfy 


BX  9193. B5  L34  1893 
The  trial  of  Dr.  Briggs 


THE  TRIAL   OF  DR.  BRIGGS 


THE 

TRIAL    OF    DR.  BRIGGS 

BEFORE  THE  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY 


&  Calm  ffiebfcfo  of  tfje  Cage 


A  STRANGER 

WHO  ATTENDED  ALL  THE  SESSIONS  OF  THE  COURT 


NEW    YORK 
ANSON  D.  F.  RANDOLPH  AND  COMPANY 

(incorporated) 
182    Fifth    Avenue 


Copyright,  1803, 
By  Anson  D.  P.  Randolph  am>  Company 

(IKCUUrOUATKD). 


JonN  Wilson  and  Son,  Camuhidce,  U.S.A. 


PREFACE. 


WHILE  the  writer  of  the  following  review 
believes  that  the  majority  of  the  members  of 
the  General  Assembly  at  Washington  were  mistaken 
in  their  opinions  of  the  views  of  the  Rev.  Professor 
Briggs,  D.  D.,  he  at  the  same  time  cherishes  sincere 
respect  for  the  Assembly  as  the  supreme  court  of  a 
church  of  Jesus  Christ. 

He  believes  that  the  circumstances  surrounding  the 
trial  of  Dr.  Briggs  were  of  such  a  nature  that  error 
on  the  part  of  the  court  was  unavoidable,  and  that  it 
is  therefore  no  reflection  upon  the  court  to  point  out 
wherein  it  may  be  shown  to  have  erred.  In  doing 
this  he  has  sought  to  avoid  any  word  that  might  be 
regarded  as  disrespectful  either  to  the  Assembly  as  a 
whole  or  to  any  of  its  members. 

He  has  at  the  same  time  sought  to  be  strictly  im- 
partial and  overlook  no  important  point,  whether 
favorable  or  unfavorable  on  either  side. 

He  has  not  written  in  a  contentious  spirit,  but  dis- 
passionately in  the  interests  of  truth  and  peace. 

Believing  that  the  truth  has  not  been  apprehended, 
by  reason  of  obscurities  by  which  it  has  been  clouded 


VI  PREFACE. 

to  the  minds  of  those  standing  nearest  to  the  consid- 
eration of  it,  he  has  felt  called  upon  by  the  peculiar 
circumstances  in  which  he  was  placed  as  a  stranger 
and  a  lover  of  the  truth,  to  contribute  his  share 
toward  dispelling  those  obscurities  that,  if  possible, 
Christian  brethren  now  unhappily  at  variance  may  be 
helped  to  see  eye  to  eye. 

Believing  that  peace  can  be  established  only  on  the 
basis  of  purity  of  doctrine,  and  that  doctrines  which 
have  appeared  to  be  heretical  can  be  seen  in  their 
true  light  only  by  a  careful  reconsideration  of  the 
questions  at  issue  in  the  light  of  all  the  evidence  and 
arguments  presented  on  both  sides,  the  writer  of  the 
following  review  has  undertaken  this  task,  praying 
that  the  Holy  Spirit,  whose  guidance  has  been  sought 
in  the  accomplishing  of  it,  may  make  use  of  the  fol- 
lowing pages  as  a  help  toward  promoting  the  peace 
of  Jerusalem  and  the  prosperity  of  Zion. 

This  only  need  be  added  :  Neither  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Briggs,  nor  any  other  minister  or  member  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  has  had 
any  knowledge  of  the  writing  of  this  review.  The 
writer  has  assumed  the  sole  responsibility  for  the 
writing  of  it,  and  for  every  sentiment  it  contains,  and 
has  withheld  his  name  that  the  views  presented 
may  be  judged  according  to  their  merits,  apart 
from  the  influence  of  any  name  whether  obscure  or 
the  reverse.  R.  J.  L^Jaak/ 

August,  1893. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

PREFACE v 

CHAPTER   I. 
Introductory 9 

CHAPTER  II. 
Attitude  of  Dr.  Briggs 12 

CHAPTER   III. 
Attitude  of  the  Assembly 20 

CHAPTER   IY. 
Attitude  of  "a  Stranger" 33 

CHAPTER  V. 

First  Charge:   The   Reason  a  Fountain  of  Divine 

Authority 39 

CHAPTER   VI. 

Second  Charge  :  The  Church  a  Fountain  of  Divine 

Authority 60 


viii  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  VII. 
Third  Charge  :  Inerrancy  of  Scripture 84 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

Fourth  and   Fifth  Charges:    Authorship  of  the 

Pentateuch  and  The  Book  of  Isaiah    .     .    .    iub 

CHAPTER  IX. 
Sixth  Charge  :  Progressive  Salification  after     ^ 
Death     

CHAPTER  X. 

.The   Rejected    Charges":    Messianic    Prophecy 
and  Second  Probation    .....•••« 

CHAPTER  XL 

.    •    159 
Decisions  and  Protests 

CHAPTER  XII. 

_  .     180 

The  Wrong  and  its  Remedy   ....•• 

CHAPTER   XIII. 

193 
Closing  Summary 


A  REVIEW 


OF 


THE  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS 


CHAPTER   I. 

INTRODUCTORY. 

AS  I  happened  to  be  on  a  visit  to  the  American 
Republic  and  its  Capital  during  the  meeting  of 
the  Presbyterian  General  Assembly  in  May  last,  I 
availed  myself  of  the  opportunity  of  being  present  at 
all  the  sessions  of  the  Briggs  Trial. 

I  had  never  seen  the  Rev.  Dr.  Briggs  and  had  taken 
but  little  interest  in  his  case.  I  had  read  his  inaugural 
in  the  quiet  of  my  study  shortly  after  its  first  appear- 
ance, but  only  laid  it  aside  as  the  utterance  of  a  scholar 
who  seemed  to  have  no  hesitation  about  leaving  the 
beaten  track  and  extending  his  investigations  into  fields 
which  are  commonly  regarded  as  the  peculiar  domain 
of  heterodoxy. 

I  was  aware  that  some  of  the  writings  of  the  author 
of  the  address  were  regarded  by  many  as  heretical  in 
their  tendencies  if  not  in  their  teaching,  and  my  read- 
ing of  the  inaugural  gave  me  additional  insight  into 
the  reasons  for  this  opinion. 


10  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

As  time  passed  and  the  question  of  the  orthodoxy 
of  the  views  of  Dr.  Briggs  came  before  the  Detroit 
Assembly,  and  a  year  later  the  Portland  Assembly, 
and  as  this  question  was  once  and  again  considered 
by  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  I,  in  common  with 
others,  gained  a  general  knowledge  of  the  question 
through  the  religious  and  secular  press,  but  not  such 
information  as  enabled  me  to  come  to  a  definite  con- 
clusion as  to  the  merits  of  the  case. 

The  questions  raised  seemed  to  be  such  as  could  be 
settled  only  by  a  careful,  critical  study  of  them.  I 
knew,  however,  that  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  there  was  no  scarcity  of  scholars  capa- 
ble of  giving  those  questions  the  best  consideration  ; 
and  I  hoped  to  have  the  privilege,  at  the  Washington 
Assembly,  of  hearing  the  views  of  so  scholarly  a  man 
as  Dr.  Briggs  set  forth  by  himself,  and  of  hearing  the 
replies  of  other  scholars  so  clearly  presented  as  to 
set  the  church,  if  not  the  world,  at  rest  regarding 
the  question  of  Dr.  Briggs'  agreement  or  want  of 
agreement  with  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church. 

The  occasion  seemed  to  afford  an  excellent  oppor- 
tunity for  doing  this.  Many  of  the  five  or  six  hun- 
dred commissioners  composing  the  Assembly  were 
men  of  learning,  and  all  of  them  were  earnest  and 
conscientious  men.  The  promptness  and  general  skill 
and  fairness  of  the  moderator  could  not  easily  have 
been  excelled.  The  apparent  equanimity  of  all  the 
members  of  the  court  seemed  also  to  be  peculiarly 
favorable. 


INTRODUCTORY.  11 

I  felt,  at  the  opening  of  the  proceedings,  that  if  Dr. 
Briggs  failed  to  prove  that  his  views  were  Scriptural 
and  orthodox,  it  must  be  either  because  they  were  not, 
or  because  he  would  fail  to  make  the  best  use  of  his 
opportunity,  or  else  because  of  something  operating 
on  the  minds  of  his  auditors  to  prevent  them  from 
giving  due  weight  to  his  statements. 

I  felt,  on  the  other  hand,  that  if  the  opponents  of 
the  views  of  Dr.  Briggs  failed  to  prove  to  the  satisfac- 
tion of  all  that  his  views  were  unscriptural  and  heret- 
ical, it  must  either  be  because  they  were  not,  or 
because  those  opposing  them  would  not  make  the  best 
use  of  their  opportunity,  or  else  because  of  something 
operating  upon  the  minds  of  their  hearers  to  prevent 
them  from  giving  due  weight  to  the  statements  and 
arguments  presented. 

As  the  case  proceeded,  however,  I  found  that  the 
occasion  was  not  so  auspicious  as  it  at  first  sight 
seemed. 

That  Dr.  Briggs  did  not  succeed  in  convincing  the 
majority  of  the  Assembly  that  his  views  were  orthodox, 
it  is  unnecessary  to  say  ;  and  it  is  equally  true  that 
his  opponents  did  not  succeed  in  convincing  the  whole 
Assembly  that  his  views  were  at  variance  with  the 
Westminster  standards.  More  than  one  hundred  of 
the  commissioners  held  that  his  views  were  not  at 
variance  with  any  essential  doctrine,  nor  in  any  re- 
spect such  as  to  warrant  his  suspension  from  the  office 
of  the  ministry.  Many  of  the  disinterested  spectators 
were  of  the  same  opinion,  and  there  appear  to  be 
thousands  throughout  the  church  whose  minds  are 
still  in  doubt. 


12  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 


CHAPTER  II. 

ATTITUDE   OF   DR.   BRIGGS. 

THAT  Dr.  Briggs  did  not  succeed  in  persuading 
the  Assembly  to  sustain  the  New  York  Pres- 
bytery's verdict  of  acquittal,  was  not  due  to  any  failure 
on  his  part  to  make  the  best  use  of  his  opportunity. 
From  the  first  moment  of  his  appearance  in  the 
court  until  near  the  close  of  the  proceedings,  when 
fatigue  compelled  him  to  withdraw,  he  was  intent 
upon  the  case.  He  listened  to  the  statements  and 
arguments  of  his  opponents  hour  after  hour,  occa- 
sionally checking  seeming  departures  from  the  right 
line  of  procedure,  with  the  earnestness  of  one  who 
realized  that  his  ecclesiastical  life  was  at  stake  and 
that  great  principles  were  involved. 

When  it  came  his  turn  to  speak,  his  appearance 
was  a  surprise  to  some  who  had  formed  their  im- 
pressions of  him  from  current  rumor.  Those  who 
had  formed  the  opinion  that  he  was  not  a  deeply  con- 
scientious man  had  to  reverse  that  opinion.  Those 
who  had  received  the  impression  that  he  was  not  a 
thoroughly  devout  student  of  the  Word  of  God  had 
to  dismiss  that  impression.  They  saw  before  them  a 
man  whose  utterances  and  whole  bearing  commended 


ATTITUDE  OF  DR.  BRIGGS.  13 

him  to  them  as  a  Christian  scholar,  a  reverent  student 
of  the  Word  of  God,  a  devout  seeker  after  truth. 
He  had  evidently  spent  much  of  his  time  among 
books,  and  students,  and  ideas,  where  he  had  his 
course  of  study  and  reasoning  for  the  most  part  in 
his  own  hands,  and  it  was,  perhaps,  partly  on  this 
account  that  he  seemed  to  find  it  difficult  to  bear 
patiently  at  times  with  the  opposition  of  those  who 
seemed  unable  either  to  understand  or  accept  his 
views. 

It  was  evident  that  the  opinions  he  held  were  not 
lightly  entertained.  They  were  based  upon  what  he 
saw  to  be  incontrovertible  facts.  They  had  been 
closely  reasoned  out  in  the  light  of  Scripture  and  of 
the  Westminster  Confession  and  Catechisms.  He 
claimed  that  while  some  of  them  were  not  directly 
taught  in  the  Westminster  standards,  they  were  not 
contradictory  of  anything  in  those  standards.  They 
might  be  extra-confessional  but  were  not  contra-con- 
fessional.  He  frankly  admitted  having  used  the  lan- 
guage of  all  the  quotations  that  were  made  from  his 
writings,  but  in  some  cases  he  strongly  repudiated 
the  meaning  that  had  been  put  upon  his  words,  and 
the  inferences  that  were  drawn  from  them.  He  was 
deeply  stirred  at  the  omission  by  the  prosecution,  and 
the  overlooking  by  the  court,  of  explanatory  state- 
ments and  qualifying  phrases  which  seemed  to  him  to 
be  of  vital  importance  ;  and  from  his  point  of  view 
those  statements  and  phrases  were  indeed  vital.  No 
disinterested  observer  could  for  a  moment  accuse  him 
of  anything  like  quibbling,  or  of  not  fairly  meeting 


14  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

each  issue  as  it  arose.     To  a  stranger  he  appeared  to 
be   frank   and   candid   in   the   highest   degree.      He 
seemed  to  be  totally  unacquainted  with  the  art- 
which   some   men   seek    to    win    favor,   and    outwit 
their  opponents.     He  appeared  to  disregard  the 
that  may  be  made  of  the  tricks  of  oratory  in  appealing 
to  a  jury,  and  to  rely  solely  on  a  plain  statement  of 
the  facts  of  his  position,  and  upon  the  lines  of  real 
ing  which  had  led  him  to  the  conclusions   he  had 
reached.     His  explanations  of  his  positions   seemed 
lucid  and  his  logic  accurate. 

One  of  the  most  venerable  of  his  opponents,  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Duffield  of  Princeton,  paid  him  the  following 
tribute  :  — 

u  Dr.  Briggs  undoubtedly  is  a  man  of  rare  scholarship, 
—  a  man  who  has  received  honors  from  European  ul: 
sities,  and  who  deserves  the  respect  and  the  kind  treatment 
of  his  Christian  brethreD.  And.  if  Dr.  Briggs  will  par- 
don me  for  saying  it,  if  Dr.  Briggs'  logical  faculty  were 
equal  to  his  scholarship,  I  know  not  his  peer  in  the  in- 
tellectual world,  certainly  of  Arnerk 

To  a  stranger  the  value  of  this  high  tribute  was 
enhanced  by  the  fact  that  it  was  exceedingly  difficult 
to  detect  any  flaw  in  his  logic.     He  seemed  aim 
too  good  a  logician.     He  relied  too  much  upon  logical 
syllogisms,  and  made  use  of  them  in  some  install 
in  his  defence  before  the  Assembly,  when  a  less  strictly 
intellectual   process   might   have  served  his  pur; 
better.     I  would  say  that  he  sometimes  appeared  to 
forget  that  u  those  root  truths  upon  which  the  founda- 


ATTITUDE   OF  DR.  BRIGGS.  15 

tions  of  being  rest  are  apprehended,  not  logically  at 
all,  but  mystically ; "  but  I  am  forbidden  by  the  recol- 
lection that  some  of  his  opponents  accused  him 
of  mysticism.  Nor  can  I  appropriately  quote  here 
these  other  words  of  Principal  Shairp :  "  When  once 
awakened  the  spiritual  faculty  far  outgoes  all  systems, 
scientific,  philosophical,  or  theological,  and  apprehends 
and  lives  by  truths  which  these  cannot  reduce  to  sys- 
tem." These  words  would  be  inappropriate  inasmuch 
as  the  spiritual  faculty  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Briggs  was 
evidently  far  from  being  dormant.  It  was  normally 
awake  and  keenly  sensitive.  His  intimate  friends 
testified  to  the  earnestness  and  sincerity  of  his  Chris- 
tian life,  and  his  opponents  joined  them  in  this  testi- 
mony. They  never  once  charged  him  with  insincerity, 
nor  as  much  as  hinted  that  his  heart  was  not  right 
toward  God.  From  all  that  he  himself  said,  either 
incidentally  or  directly,  regarding  God  the  Father, 
God  the  Son,  and  God  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  was  mani- 
fest that  he  was  a  devout  believer  in  the  doctrine  of 
the  Holy  Trinity.  It  was  equally  evident  that  he  was 
an  ardent  lover  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  held  firmly  to 
the  great  doctrine  of  the  Atonement.  '  He  did  not 
parade  his  piety,  it  is  true,  yet  it  was  apparent  to  all 
who  saw  and  heard  him  for  the  first  time  that  he  was 
what  his  friends  and  opponents  alike  declared  him  to 
be,  not  only  a  great  scholar  but  a  good  man.'  After 
carefully  observing  his  attitude  of  mind,  and  listening 
attentively  to  all  his  utterances  in  his  defence,  I  was 
not  surprised  when  told  privately  that  in  matters  of 
morals  "  he  is  a  Puritan  of  the  Puritans." 


16  TRIAL  01  DB.  BRIGGS. 

Hearing  such  testimony  borne  regarding  the  ao 
ed,  and  observing  that  this  testimony  was  con- 
firmed by  all  his  utterances  and  his  whole  bearing,  it 
was  scarcely  possible  tor  a  disinterested  stranger  to 
help  wishing  in  the  early  stages  of  the  proceedings, 
that  the  trial  should  not  go  on,  hut  that  the  request 
of  Dr.  BriggS  and  his  friends  should  be  complied  with, 
and  the  case-  be  allowed  to  take  the-  usual  course  and  he 
first  dealt  with  hy  the  court  of  next  higher  jurisdic- 
tion after  the  Presbytery,  the  Synod  of  Sew  York. 

The  attitude  of  Dr.  BriggS  may  perhaps  he  best  set 
forth  hy  the  following  quotations  from  the  close  of  his 
two  main  arguments  before  the  Assembly.  Jn  clos- 
ing his  five  hours'  argument  upon  the  question  of 
procedure,  lie  spoke  as  follows  :  — 

"Mr.  Moderator  and  brethren,  the  appellant  in  the 
opening  argument,  as  I  have  already  intimated,  entered 

into  the  merits  of  the  appeal.  I  .shall  not  attempt  to  go 
into  that  merit  nv  pt  bo  i'<u-  as  to  make  an  explicit 

denial  of  his  statement,  when  ho  charges  me  with  teach- 
ing doctrines  which  are  fundamental  errors.  I  deny  that 
I  have  ever  taught  any  doctrines  that  are  fundamental 
errors,  and  my  presbytery  has  acquitted  me,  brethren,  of 

teaching  any  fundamental  error 

Then,  with  uplifted  hand,  Dr.  BriggS  solemnly 
uttered   the  following  words:  — 

"I  affirm   before  this  body  that  I   believe  the   Holy 

Scriptures  to  he  the  Word  of  God,  the  only  infallible  rule 
of  faith  and  practice,  according  to  the  vow  that  J  assumed 
at  my  ordination,  and  which  I  have  assumed  every  three 


ATTITUDE   OF   DK.  BRIGGS.  17 

years,  according  to  the  rule  of  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary.  I  affirm  that  I  hold  to  the  whole  doctrine 
taught  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  Westminster  Confession 
relating  to  Holy  Scripture,  without  any  qualification  or 
reservation  whatever. 

"I  beg  leave  to  affirm  that  I  hold  to  the  entire  system 
of  doctrine  set  forth  in  the  Wesminster  Confession,  and 
anything  that  I  may  have  said  that  at  all  conflicts  with 
this  statement  is  due  to  the  misinterpretations  which 
have  been  put  upon  the  language  which  I  have  uttered. 
I  will  not  say  that  these  misinterpretations  are  always 
intentional.  I  shall  not  exonerate  myself  from  some  pos- 
sible blame  in  lack  of  clearness  in  the  enunciation  of 
them.  But  I  beg  leave  to  affirm  the  truth  that  I  have 
made  no  statement  that  at  all  conflicts  with  the  affirma- 
tions that  I  have  made  before  you. 

"  And  now,  brethren,  in  all  honesty  between  us  as  breth- 
ren, ought  not  this  case  to  cease  ?  Send  it  to  the  Synod 
of  New  York, —  and  I  call  in  all  honesty  and  friendliness 
upon  the  appellants  to  unite  with  me  in  that  procedure, — 
and  I  promise  them  in  your  presence  that  if  they  will  go 
with  me  to  the  Synod  of  Xew  York,  where  the  whole  case 
can  be  considered  by  that  Synod,  in  the  most  friendly  and 
courteous  manner,  I  will  aid  in  a  full  solution  of  all  the 
matters  in  dispute.  That  is  all  I  have  to  say.  If  I  have 
said  anything  that  at  all  injures  the  feelings  of  any  mem- 
ber of  this  court,  I  very  much  regret  it.  If  I  have  said 
anything  in  my  inaugural  that  has  disturbed  the  peace  of 
the  church  or  caused  any  doubt  or  uncertainty  or  affliction 
to  even  the  feeblest  of  God's  children,  I  regret  it  more 
than  any  one  else  can  do. 

"I  have  been  a  teacher  of  the  Bible  in  the  Union 
Theological  Seminary  for  twenty  years.     There  are  only 

2 


TRIAL  OF   DR.  BRIO 

four  professors   now  teaching   in  your  theological    semi- 
naries   that    have   been    in   service   longer   than    I    1. 
e  are  only  two  of  them  that  have  taught  more  mil 
now   in  the   service  than  I  have.     I   challenge   the 
production  of  a  single  one  of  these  ministers  that  have 
.  under  my  instruction  during  the  |  are 

who  can  say  that  anything  that  I  have  taught  him  has 
undermined  or  diminished  his  faith  in  the  divine  authority 
ly  Scripture  or  his  love  for  the  Word  of  G 

It  was  not  surprising  that  at  the  close  of  this  ear- 
appeal  the  court  should,  for  the  moment,  have 
forgotten  the  moderators  charge  and  given  way  to  a 
burst  of  applause.     Yet  the  appeal  was  in  vain.     "\ 
Assembly  by  an  overwhelming  majority, 
decided  not  to  remit  the  case  to  the  synod,  but 
put  Dr.  Briggs  on  trial  at  once.     When  the  mcri'~ 
the  case  were  considered,  he  closed  his  seven  hours' 
argument  in  his  defence  with  the  following  words : 

v.  Mr.  Moderator  and  brethren.  I  1.  vored 

fore  you  as   clearly  and    thoroughly  as  I  could 

what  are  my  views  on  the  subjects  in  dispute.     I  hold 

fches<  -incerely  and  with  all  my  heart.     I  hold  that 

they  are  the  views  that  are  set  forth  in  Holy  .Scripture. 

_  r  portion  of  them  are  set  forth  also  in  tl 
mil  n  of  Faith,  and  as  I  know  from  a  study 

of  the  Westminster   divines  for   many  years,   would   be 
rded  by  them  as  very  important  matters  of  the  Puritan 
faith  of  the  seventeenth  century. 

ere  are  other  matters  in  dispute  which  have  a 
in  the  public  mind  since  the  times  of  the  Westmi 

-mbly,  and  have  received  no  definition  in  our  stand- 


ATTITUDE   OF  DR.  BRIGGS.  19 

ards.  Now,  you  must  judge  upon  these  matters  as  judges 
in  the  presence  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  before  the  living 
God,  and  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  I  chal- 
lenge you  before  God  that  you  judge  righteous  judgment. 
I  challenge  you  before  God  that  you  judge  me  according 
to  the  record  of  the  declarations  I  have  made.  I  challenge 
you  before  Jesus  Christ  that  you  do  no  wrong  to  the 
Church  of  the  living  God." 


20  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 


CHAPTER   III. 

ATTITUDE   OF   THE   ASSEMBLY. 

THE  General  Assembly  that  convened  at  "Wash- 
ington, D.C.,  on  the  18th  May,  1893,  was  a 
typical  Presbyterian  Supreme  Court.  Seldom  have 
over  five  hundred  and  fifty  men  of  equal  intelligence 
been  seen  gathered  together  as  one  body.  Coming 
from  all  parts  of  the  great  American  Republic,  and 
from  the  church's  mission  fields  in  China,  India,  South 
America  and  elsewhere,  all  the  commissioners,  clerical 
and  lay  alike,  seemed  from  the  first  to  be  possessed  of 
a  spirit  of  calmness  which  betokened  that  they  felt 
there  was  grave  business  on  hand.  The  exceptions  to 
this  stair  of  calm  reserve  wore  so  rare  as  to  be  very 
noticeable  when  they  did  occur. 

Some  minds  were  so  overburdened  with  a  sense  of 
the  importance  of  the  great  issue  before  them  that 
they  could  not  refrain  from  giving  vent  to  their  feel- 
ings as  soon  as  an  opportunity  was  afforded  them  of 
addressing  their  brethren.  The  retiring  moderator 
was  the  first  to  relieve  his  mind  in  this  way.  His 
opening  sermon  was  of  the  nature  of  an  earnest  argu- 
ment in  advance  against  the  supposed  heresies  the 
Assembly  when  constituted  was  expected  to  deal  with. 
That  the  calmness  on  the  surface  of  the  assembly  had 


ATTITUDE  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY.  21 

a  great  depth  of  strong  feeling  underneath  it  was 
made  manifest  by  the  applause  that  unexpectedly 
burst  forth  in  the  sacred  gathering  when  the  preacher 
gave  utterance  to  sentiments  that  most  directly  an- 
tagonized the  alleged  heresies. 

This  burst  of  feeling  over,  the  commissioners  settled 
back  into  their  former  attitude  of  calm  reserve.  Ob- 
serving their  decorum  throughout  the  prolonged  dis- 
cussions, one  was  sometimes  at  a  loss  to  understand 
the  secret  of  their  marked  calmness.  Was  it  a  con- 
scientious sense  of  the  gravity  of  the  occasion  ?  Or 
was  it  simply  coolness,  such  as  is  ordinarily  character- 
istic of  the  American  people  ?  Were  many  of  the 
commissioners  still  undecided  as  to  what  their  final 
action  should  be,  and  were  they  holding  their  judg- 
ment in  abeyance  until  the  arguments  were  in  ?  Or 
did  the  majority  of  the  assembly  feel  that  they  had 
been  sent  to  Washington  to  discharge  an  unpleasant 
duty,  and  must  discharge  it  whatever  arguments  to  the 
contrary  might  be  presented  ?  Did  they  feel  that  they 
were  so  strong  that  they  could  afford  to  be  silent  and 
allow  the  opposing  minority  the  utmost  latitude  until 
the  time  of  voting  should  come  ?  Probably  no  one 
of  these  suppositions,  nor  all  of  them  taken  together, 
would  fully  account  for  the  quiet  reserve  that  was 
manifest.  To  a  disinterested  observer  the  considera- 
tions that  seemed  to  have  chief  weight  were  these : 
The  impression  prevailed  throughout  the  length  and 
breadth  of  the  church  that  Dr.  Briggs  entertained  and 
taught  heretical  views  upon  several  doctrines  which 
the  Presbyterian  Church  has  always  regarded  as  vital ; 


22  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

the  commissioners  sent  to  the  assembly  were  expected 
to  set  the  mind  of  the  church  at  rest  by  condemning 
those  alleged  heresies ;  if  they  failed  to  do  this,  then 
the  impression  would  go  abroad  that  the  Presbyterian 
Church  had  drifted  away  from  her  old  moorings ;  if 
they  sent  the  case  to  the  Synod  of  New  York,  they 
would  be  accused  of  having  failed  to  discharge  the 
duty  assigned  them ;  and  as  for  their  failing  to  find 
Dr.  Briggs  guilty  of  the  heresies  charged  against  him, 
this  would  be  out  of  the  question,  inasmuch  as  the 
majority  of  the  membership  of  the  church  believed  that, 
through  the  columns  of  the  religious  and  secular  press, 
they  were  already  in  possession  of  all  the  evidence 
that  was  needed  in  order  to  condemn  him.  Under 
such  circumstances  what  could  the  assembly  do,  in 
the  interests  of  the  peace  of  the  church  and  the  cause 
of  truth,  but  the  thing  which  the  great  majority  of 
the  church  believed  to  be  the  only  thing  that  could 
properly  be  done  ?  It  might  be  said  that  they  should 
have  braved  the  opinions  of  the  many  who  would  have 
been  disappointed  by  such  a  mode  of  procedure,  and 
remitted  the  case  to  the  Synod  of  New  York,  in  the 
hope  that  both  the  peace  of  the  church  and  the  inter- 
ests of  truth  in  general  would  eventually  be  better 
conserved  in  this  way  ;  but  in  the  discretion  of  the 
Assembly  it  was  not  deemed  expedient  to  pursue  this 
course  ;  and  what  more  need  be  said  ?  The  discretion 
of  a  court  is  not  subject  to  review.  It  would  be 
ungenerous  to  say  that  their  discretion  may  have 
been  governed  by  circumstances  outside  the' court, 
or  to  say  that  the  members  of  the  prosecuting  com- 


ATTITUDE   OF  THE  ASSEMBLY.  23 

niittee  were  far  from  being  alone  in  wishing  to  have 
the  case  settled  at  that  Assembly,  and  settled  in 
favor  of  their  appeal.  To  say  this  might  be  eqnal 
to  imputing  not  very  creditable  motives  to  a  body 
of  Christian  men  who  were  without  doubt  honorable 
and   conscientious. 

I  am  aware  that  there  are  those  who  think  that  all 
the  above  considerations  should  be  ruled  out,  and  that 
it  should  simply  be  said  that  the  case  of  Dr.  Briggs 
was  decided  solely  in  accordance  with  the  evidence 
and  arguments  presented  before  the  court.  There  arc 
no  doubt  thousands  who  believe  this.  Far  be  it  from 
me  to  say  that  those  who  voted  for  the  condemnation 
and  suspension  of  Dr.  Briggs  did  not  believe  they 
were  voting  in  as  close  accord  as  possible  with  the 
evidence  and  arguments  presented.  I  sincerely  be- 
lieve the  very  opposite  of  this.  But  I  also  believe 
that  it  was  impossible  for  the  court  to  be  properly 
seized  of  all  the  explanations  made  and  all  the  argu- 
ments and  evidence  presented.  The  evidence  was 
simply  voluminous.  It  consisted  of  printed  volumes, 
and  sections  and  sentences  of  volumes,  which  it 
would  have  taken  the  most  skilled  of  scholars  days, 
if  not  weeks,  to  examine  under  the  most  favor- 
able circumstances.  Think  of  the  following  as  sub- 
mitted in  evidence  by  Col.  J.  J.  McCook  on  behalf 
of  the  Prosecuting  Committee,  here  called  the  ap- 
pellant :  — 

"Upon  pages  S6,  88,  and  89  of  the  printed  document 
in  the  hands  of  the  commissioners  will  be  found  reference 
to  the  evidence  introduced  by  the  appellant.     On  pages 


24  TRIAL   OF  DR.  BRIG 

89.  90,  91,  92,  and  93  will  be  found  reference  to  the 
deuce   introduced  by  the  appellee,   all  of  which,  having 
been  received  as  competent  evidence  by  the  lower  court, 
may  be   used   by   the    parties    in    the    argument   of  this 
appeal. 

"When  sitting  as  a  judicatory  in  a  judicial  case,  the  mem- 
-  of  the  court  are  charged  with  judicial  knowledg 
the  contents  of  the  constitution  of  tl.  rch 

in  the  United  States  of  America,  i  g  of  the  I 

ion  of  Faith,  the  larger  and  shorter  Cal  •  the 

Form  of  Government,  the  Book  of  Discipline,  and  Direc- 
tory of  Worship,  a  copy  of  which  was  introduced  in 
evidence  by  the  appellant,  marked  Y. 

"The  members  of  the  court  are  also  charged  with  judi- 
cial knowledge  of  the  contents  of  the  Holy  Bible,  a  co: 
which  was  introduced  in  evidence  by  the  appellant,  marked 
G,  and  any  portions  of  the  Holy  Bible  and  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  church  may  be  referred  to  by  the  appellant, 
without  any  previous  designation  of  the  part  or  parts 
thereof  to  be  I 

"The  minutes  of  the  General  Assembly  being  a  pub- 
lic document  and  an  official   record    of    the    church,    the 
court  must  also  take  judicial  knowledge  of  the  coir 
thereof,   and    the    appellant    pi 

of  the  minutes  of  the  General  Assembly 
of  18 

••  Use  will  also  be  made,  as  a  part  of  the  record  in  this 
.  of  portions  of  the  original  charges  and  specifications 
in  tl  resented  to  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  on 

the  5th  day  of  October,  1891,  or  of  all  or  any  part  of  the 
amended  charges  and  specifications  (found  at  pag 
75  of  the  printed  document)  presented  to  tl. 
of  New  York  on  the  9th  day  of  November,  1892,  including 


ATTITUDE  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY.  25 

the  quotations  from  the  inaugural  address,  and  the  cita- 
tions of  proof  from  Scripture,  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and 
the  larger  and  shorter  Catechisms. 

"  The  appellant  will  also  use  the  judgment,  the  notice  of 
appeal,  the  appeal,  and  the  specifications  of  errors  alleged, 
which  have  already  been  read,  and  will  be  found  at  pages 
3  to  34  (inclusive)  in  the  printed  document. 

"The  appellant  will  also  use  the  following  pages,  or  parts 
thereof,  of  the  minutes  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York: 
vol.  xiv.,  pages  227,  228,  265,  276,  285,  286,  291,  292, 
294,  303-305,  310,  313,  319,  355,  356,  361,  378,  384, 
385,  395,  396,  397,  and  500  et  seq.  We  don't  propose  to 
read  those  pages.  This  is  for  the  identification  of  the 
matter.  We  propose  to  read  them  if  we  care  to,  but  we 
don't  propose  to  read  them  as  a  whole.  It  is  simply  for 
notice  to  the  appellee  of  such  portions  of  the  record  as  we 
wish  to  use. 

"  The  appellant  will  also  use  the  following  pages  or  parts 
thereof  of  the  stenographic  report  of  the  trial  in  the  Pres- 
bytery of  New  York  from  Nov.  9,  1892,  to  Jan.  9,  1893, 
as  follows:  pages  121,  122,  123,  148,  187,  188,  405,  411, 
451  et  seq.,  470-472,  475,  476,  477,  478,  784,  900,  993, 
1009,  1010,  1028,  1029,  1035,  1036-1038,  1153,  1174, 
1210,  1212,  1214,  1225,  1228,  1341,  1343-1351. 

"The  appellant  will  also  use  the  Preface  to  the  Inaug- 
ural Address,  third  edition,  with  the  appendix  thereto,  and 
the  whole  or  parts  of  the  following  pages  thereof:  25,  26, 
27,  31,  32,  33,  34,  35,  41,  53,  55,  5S,  89,  103,  104,  105, 
106,  107,  147;  Dr.  Briggs'  work,  < Whither, >  pages  11, 
211,  and  221;  Dr.  Griggs'  'Biblical  Study/  pages  161 
and  243;  Dr.  Briggs'  'Who  Wrote  the  Pentateuch? '  or 
parts  thereof,  as  follows:  pages  23,  25,  28,  29,  75,  79, 
101,    106,    124,    157,    158,   159,    and   162;    Dr.    Briggs' 


26  TRIAL  OF   DR.  BRIGG& 

'Who  Wrote   Isaiah?'   pages   135,    137,   and  138:    Dr. 
article  in  the   ( Presbyterian  Review5  for  April, 

" The  appellant  will  also  use  in  its  argument  portions 
of  pages  1  and    1  nan's    -Apologia  pro  Vita  Sua, 

in  the  volume  submitted  in  evidence  by  the  appellant 
marked  D. 

"The  appellant  will  also  use  portions  of  book  i.  chapl 
i.  and  ii.,  book  ii.  chapter  ii.,  and  book  iv.  chapter  ii., 
of  Martineau's  'Seat  of  Authority  in  Religion/  in  the 
volume  introduced  in  evidence  by  the  appellant  marked  E; 
'An dover  Review,5  vol.  xiii.  page  59;  BLuenen's  •  Prophets 
and  Prophecies  in  Israel5  (1877),  pages  143-449. 

••  J    shall  not  take  the  time  of  the  court  to  read  any  of 
■-   citations  at   this   time;    but   they  may  be  read,  and 
will  be  referred  to  from  time  to  time  during  the  argument. 
In  this  way  the  appellant  hop<  pects  to  use  but 

little  more  than  one-half  of  the  time  assigned  to  it. 
Dr.  Lampe  will  now  present  the  appellant's  opening 
argument/5 

Note  also  the  following  statements  by  Dr.  Briggs, 

as  indicating  the  vastness  of  the  mass  of  evidence 
which  it  was  necessary  for  the  court  to  consider,  in 
order  to  have  an  intelligent  acquaintance  with  his 
position. 

"  1  wish  to  make  a  few  preliminary  statements  for  the 
information  of  the  house,  and  the  gentlemen  of  the  pi 
and  the  stenographer. 

I  waive  the  reading  of  the  records,  although  I 
feel  very  deeply  that  the  records  contain  my  defence  i: 
fulness,    including    the    printed  document  called    the   de- 
fence, also  the  volume  entitled  the  'Higher  Criticism  of 


ATTITUDE   OF  THE  ASSEMBLY.  27 

the  Hexateuch,'  which  is  a  part  of  the  defence,  and  the 
volume  on  '  The  Bible,  the  Church,  and '  the  Reason, ' 
which  was  submitted  to  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  as  a 
part  of  the  evidence,  and  also  all  of  the  evidence  which  I 
submitted  to  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  in  the  trial. 
But  the  reading  of  all  that  defence  and  all  that  evidence 
would  consume  a  great  many  hours,  and  I  have  taken  it 
for  granted  that  this  defence  and  the  evidence  having  been 
sent  by  mail  to  every  commissioner  of  this  assembly,  I 
might  take  it  for  granted  that  as  honorable  men  they  had 
read  it,  and  it  would  only  be  necessary  for  me  in  argu- 
ment to  call  attention  to  what  I  regarded  as  the  essential 
parts   thereof. 

"  Second,  I  have  endeavored  to  save  the  time  of  the  house 
as  far  as  possible  in  my  argument.  Therefore  I  have 
gone  over  it  and  I  have  cut  it  up  and  readjusted  so  many 
parts  of  it  as  that  I  can  answer  the  question  of  the  stated 
clerk  that  not  even  the  copy  which  is  in  my  hands  can 
really  be  relied  upon  as  giving  to  the  stenographer  the 
argument  which  I  am  now  to  make.  Because  it  is  neces- 
sary, under  the  peculiar  circumstances  in  which  I  am  now 
placed,  to  make  some  portions  of  my  argument  purely 
extempore. 

"Let  me  say,  in  the  third  place,  that  there  are  so  many 
of  these  specifications  of  error  which  concern  purely  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  that  I  feel  it  is  a  serious  burden 
that  it  should  be  laid  upon  me  to  defend  the  presbytery.  I 
wish  that  the  commissioners  of  the  presbytery  had  more 
time  to  defend  the  presbytery  with  reference  to  these 
matters." 

In  addition  to  all  this,  Dr.  Briggs  found  it  neces- 
sary to  bring  a  number  of  volumes  before  the  court, 


28  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

from  some  of  which  lengthy  extracts  were  read  in 
his  defence,  and  one  of  which  he  was  so  questioned 
regarding  that  he  said  that  in  order  to  answer  fully, 
he  would  require  to  read  the  whole  chapter  referred  to, 
and  offered  to  Lend  the  volume  to  his  questioner. 

Besides  all  tins,  the  minds  of  the  commissioners 
wen;  further  distracted,  by  the  multiplicity  of  techni- 
cally arranged  matters,  which  all  required  separate 
consideration,  —  such  as  the  first  ground  of  appeal 
with  twelve  specifications  under  it ;  the  second  ground 
of  appeal  with  its  three  specifications;  the  third 
ground  of  appeal  with  its  two  specifications;  the 
fourth  ground  of  appeal  with  its  six  specifications;  the 
fifth  ground  of  appeal  with  its  eleven  specifications. 

After  days  had  been  spent  in  considering  all  these 
matters  seriatim  which  required  the  commissioners 
to  give  close  attention,  forenoon,  afternoon,  and  even- 
ing, to  addresses  ranging  from  three  to  five  hours  in 
length,  then  came  the  consideration  of  the  original 
and  amended  charges,  extending  over  a  still  longer 
number  of  days,  and  requiring  the  attention  of  the 
commissioners,  forenoon,  afternoon,  and  evening,  to 
addresses  ranging  from  four  to  seven  hours  in  length. 
No  wonder  that  at  one  stage  of  the  proceedings,  when 
Dr.  Briggs  was  presenting  some  of  his  most  impor- 
tant evidence,  a  commissioner  should  have  moved 
that  tie-  Assembly  take  an  extended  recess,  as  about 
half  a  dozen  commissioners  near  him  were  fast 
asleep. 

So  complex  and  comprehensive  was  the  matter  to 
be  considered,  so  voluminous  was  the  evidence,  and 


ATTITUDE  OF  THE  ASSEMBLY.        29 

so  extended  was  the  argument,  that   it  was   simply 
impossible  for  the  vast  majority  of  the  commissioners 
to  follow  the  case  closely  and  give  due  weight  to  all  the 
statements  and  explanations  made.     Had  there  been 
time  in  the  intervals  between  sessions  to  read  the 
evidence  as  it  appeared  from  day  to  day  in  the  official 
report  of  the  Assembly,  it  might  have  been  otherwise, 
or  had  the  commissioners  been  in  possession  of  the 
volumes  referred  to  in  evidence,  but  even  this  was 
not   the  case.     Strange  as  it  may  seem,  though  all 
the  charges  against  Dr.  Briggs  were  based  upon  his 
inaugural  address,  not  a  copy  of  that  address  was  to 
be  found  in  the  Assembly.     A  commissioner  proposed      s 
to  have  copies  of  it  introduced,  that  the  quotations 
might  be  read  in  their  connection,  but  the  Assembly 
paid  no  heed    to  the   proposal.     The   commissioners 
probably  felt  that  they  had  enough  to  perplex  them  in 
the  documents  already  in  their  hands,  and  in  the  long 
and  elaborate  addresses  to  which  they  must  try  to 
listen,  and  that  the  original  and  fundamental  docu- 
ment would   only  add   to   their   perplexity.     It  was 
evident  that  in  undertaking  to  investigate  all  the  im- 
portant  doctrinal    statements  and   principles   before 
them,  in  a  thoroughly  satisfactory  manner,  in  the  few 
days  at  their  disposal,  they  had  undertaken  an  impos- 
sible  task.     They   might   go   through   the  forms    of 
a   judicial   investigation  with   all   possible    patience, 
but  they  could  not  attain  the  true  ends  of  such  an 
investigation. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  all  this  operated  to  the 
disadvantage  of  Dr.  Briggs.     The  charges  that  had 


30  TRIAL  OF  DB    BBKH 

boon  made  against  him  were  simple,  strong,  and  easily 
remembered.  The  newspaper  articles  and  popular 
rumors  respecting  those  charges,  and  his  alleged 
jy  in  general,  had  impressed  the  charges  deeply 
upon  the  minds  of  all ;  and  unless*,  in  his  defence,  he 
could  succeed  in  effacing  that  impression  by  what  he 
had  the  opportunity  of  saying  only  once  and  that  to 
a  wearied  audience,  the  impression  would  remain.  So 
numerous  wore  the  points  to  be  discussed,  and  the 
statements  to  be  refuted,  that  long  before  the  defend- 
ant had  finished  his  argument  the  explanations  lie-  had 
made  in  the  early  part  of  his  defence,  which  occupied 
-.  must  have  been  obscured  if  not  effaced  by  the 
consideration  of  other  matters  of  a  different  doctrinal 
nature.  Dr.  Briggs  himself  saw  this  danger,  and  at  the 
opening  of  Ids  defence  sought  to  guard  the  Assembly 
against  it  as  follows  :  — 

"The  peril  of  the  .situation  is  this,  brethren, —  I  ask  you 
to  guard  your  gainst  it  as  judge*  of  this  court, — 

that  when  it  comet  to  a  rote  and  you  are  weary  with  the 
long  discussion  of  the  parties,  and  the  debate,  yon  .-hall 
not  rush  on  without  thought,  and  sustain  one  specification 
after  another  without  giving  it  the  due  consideration  that 
it  require 

It  was  significant  that  when  the  vote  was  taken  all 
of  the  thirty-four  specifications  were  sustained  except 
two,  and  that  these  two,  containing  a  charge  of  preju- 
dice against  certain  well-known  members  of  the  S<w 
.  were  easily  understood  and  remem- 
bered, and  from  their  personal  character  had  made  an 


ATTITUDE   OF  THE   ASSEMBLY.  31 

indelible  impression  upon  the  minds  of  the  commis- 
sioners. Another  specification  of  a  similar  nature  was 
sustained  by  a  majority  of  only  two  votes,  and  any  one 
listening  to  the  discussion  could  easily  understand  why 
it  was  not  rejected  along  with  the  other  two. 

The  whole  vote  to  sustain  the  appeal  against  the 
acquittal  of  Dr.  Briggs  stood  as  follows :  Total 
number  of  votes  cast,  499 ;  to  sustain,  298  ;  to  sus- 
tain in  part,  85  ;  not  to  sustain,  116. 

The  remarkable  majority  against  Dr.  Briggs  was 
owing  largely,  if  not  wholly,  to  the  difficulty  commis- 
sioners must  have  found  in  retaining  and  weighing;  the 
arguments  and  evidence  presented.  Judging  as  a  dis- 
interested observer,  the  majority  of  the  assembly  never 
properly  apprehended  Dr.  Briggs'  position.  They  never 
succeeded  in  looking  at  the  matters  in  dispute  from  his 
point  of  view.  Hence,  what  was  plain  truth  to  him  was 
distorted  truth  to  them.  They  could  not  reconcile 
his  statements  with  his  claim  to  being  an  orthodox 
teacher.  How  he  could  make  the  strong  assertions  of 
loyalty  to  the  standards  of  the  church,  and  hold  the 
views  he  seemed  to  them  to  hold,  appeared  to  be  an 
enigma  to  them. 

The  great  difference  between  the  majority  and  the 
minority  in  the  Assembly  was  not  a  difference  of 
scholarship,  nor  of  intellectual  ability,  nor  of  sound- 
ness in  the  faith,  nor  of  fair-mindedness  ;  it  consisted 
in  this,  that  the  minority  saw  the  matters  in  dispute 
from  Dr.  Briggs'  point  of  view,  while  the  majority  did 
not.  To  a  disinterested  onlooker  this  was  clear. 
The  majority  condemned  Dr.  Briggs  for  his  views  as 


TRIAL  OF   DB.  BBICH 

they  interpreted  them,  and  not  as  he  interpreted 
them  and  as  they  really  were.  According  to  their 
understanding  of  them,  Dr.  Briggs'  teachings  were  at 
variance  frith  the  Scriptures  and  the  standards  of  the 
church.  According  to  his  own  understanding  of  them 
they  wore  not  at  variance  with  either.  Jt.  is  not  the 
first  time  thatequaily  honest  and  equally  devout  lovers 
of  the  same  truth  have  misunderstood  one  another. 
Whether  this  misunderstanding  was  the  fault  of  Dr. 
Briggs  or  the  majority,  or  both,  or  neither,  need  not 
be  discussed,  but  that  it  was  a  fact  will  appear  from  a 
calm  review  of  the  merits  of  the  case. 


y 


ATTITUDE  OF  "A  STRANGER."  33 


CHAPTER  IV. 

ATTITUDE   OF   "  A    STRANGER.'' 

BORN  of  Scottish  Presbyterian  parents,  early  in- 
structed in  the  Bible  and  the  Westminster 
"Shorter  Catechism"  after  the  old-time  Scottish  fash- 
ion ;  specially  instructed  in  the  standards  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  by  a  thoroughly  evangelical  and 
orthodox  Scotch  minister;  subsequently  instructed  in 
theology  by  the  late  venerable  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  and 
his  associates  during  a  three  years'  course  at  Princeton 
Theological  Seminary;  for  more  than  twenty  years  a 
city  pastor,  ministering  to  people  of  undoubted  intelli- 
gence and  orthodoxy  ;  for  the  past  quarter  of  a  century 
a  reader  of  that  witness  for  orthodoxy  The  Presby- 
terian,—  I  found  myself  on  the  18th  of  May  last,  in  the 
ordering  of  Providence,  and  without  any  pre-arrange- 
ment  of  mine,  a  visitor  at  the  Washington  Assembly. 

As  already  intimated,  I  had  formed  no  definite  opin- 
ion as  to  the  merits  of  the  Briggs  case,  and  had  taken 
no  side  upon  the  questions  at  issue,  though  my  reading 
on  the  subject  had  tended  to  incline  me  toward  an 
unfavorable  judgment  of  Dr.  Briggs'  views. 

I  found  myself  ready  to  listen  impartially  to  both 
sides,  and  was  curious  to  know  how  the  evidence  and 
arguments  would  impress  me. 

3 


34  TRIAL  or   DR.  BRIGG8. 

It  was  interesting  to  me  to  find  that  Dr.  Briggs 
and  his  friends  seem':'!  to  me  to  have  quite  the  best 
of  the  argument  upon  the  question  as  to  whether 
the  case  should  be  tried  there  and  then,  or  sent 
to  the  Synod  of  New  5Tork.  But  my  conviction  that 
the  majority  had  acted  in  accordance  with  their  best 
discretion  in  deciding  to  try  the  case  without  delay 
kept  me  still  in  sympathy  with  them.  It  must  be 
acknowledged  that  my  desire  to  hear  the  merits  of 
the  case  discussed  also  helped  to  reconcile  me  to  the 
fad  that  my  judgment  had  not  been  the  judgment 
of  the  majority.  When  the  merits  of  the  case  came 
up  for  discussion  J  gave  close  alien! ion  to  the  care- 
fully prepared  argument  of  Dr.  Lampe  on  behalf  of 
fhe  prosecuting  committee,  hut  was  surprised  to  find 
that  I  could  not  agree  with  many  of  the  statements  it 
contained.  While,  in  some  instances,  by  quotations 
from  Dr.  Briggs1  writings,  it  appeared  to  show  that 
J)r.  Briggs  was  out  of  accord  will)  the  Presbyterian 
standards,  in  other  cases  it  seemed  to  fail  to  grasp 
and  meet  his  views.  The  Scripture  passages  cited 
and  the  application  made  of  them  seemed  to  lack 
pertinency.  All  that  the  passages  taught  could  bo 
true,  and  the  views  they  were  cited  to  disprove  could 
also  be  true.  There  were  not  a  few  examples  of  this 
kind  of  irrelevancy  and  inconclusiveness  in  quotations, 
both  from  the  Bible  and  the  Westminster  divines. 
There  were  also  positions  taken  which  were  obviously 
contrary  to  the  Presbyterian  standards,  as  may  be  seen 
in  the  following  pages. 

Then  I  discovered   that  Dr.  Lampe  was  far  more 


ATTITUDE   OF   ''A  STRANGER."  35 

"  orthodox  "  than  I  had  been  trained  to  be  at  Prince- 
ton, or  than  I  had  become  after  over  twenty  years  of 
study  along  the  lines  on  which  I  entered  during  my 
seminary  course.  I  saw  that  his  ideas  of  the  Church 
and  the  reason  as  channels  of  divine  authority  were 
far  from  being  mine,  that  his  "  views  of  the  doctrine 
of  inspiration  "  and  the  inerrancy  of  Scripture  were  not 
in  accord  with  the  special  teachings  of  two  of  my  Prince- 
ton professors,  and  that  his  statements  and  reasoning 
regarding  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  were  di- 
rectly opposed  to  the  published  views  of  another  of  my 
Princeton  professors,  as  will  appear  when  the  several 
charges  against  Dr.  Briggs  are  passed  under  review. 

On  the  other  hand,  in  listening  to  Dr.  Briggs  in  his 
defence  of  his  views,  I  was  impressed  with  the  clear- 
ness of  his  statements  and  the  directness  with  which 
he  met  every  charge.  His  appeals  to  both  the  Word  of 
God  and  the  Westminster  standards  seemed  pertinent; 
his  reasoning  plain  and  his  arguments  conclusive.  In 
the  light  of  his  exposition  of  his  inaugural,  its  mean- 
ing and  intent  as  a  loyal  contribution  toward  a  right 
understanding  of  the  authority  of  Holy  Scripture  and 
the  relations  of  the  Church  and  the  reason  became  ap- 
parent. Even  the  statements  the  inaugural  contained 
which  at  first  view  had  seemed  decidedly  objectionable 
were  almost  entirely  relieved  of  their  offensiveness. 

But  what  interested  me  most  was  the  remarkable 
agreement  of  the  views  of  Dr.  Briggs,  upon  several  of 
the  doctrines  on  which  he  had  been  arraigned,  with 
the  views  I  had  been  taught  at  Princeton,  and  which 
I  had  taught  freely  to  intelligent  and  orthodox  con- 
gregations for  more  than  twenty  years. 


36  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BBIGOa 

My  conviction  was  that  the  Assembly  could  not 
possibly  condemn  \>r.  Briggs  for  holding  those  views; 
that  if  they  did  they  would  condemn  many  of  the 

most  esteemed  and  orthodox  ministers,  living  and 
dead,  of  the  American  church,  not  to  speak  of  minis- 
ters equally  loyal  to  the  truth  in  the  church  to  which  1 
have  the  honor  to  belong,  and  in  other  branches  of  the 
great  Presbyterian  Church  throughout  the  world. 

This  impression  was  deepened  os  I  listened  to  the 
closing  argument  of  Colon'. 1  McCook,  in  which  he  did 
not  attempt  to  refute  the  statements  and  arguments  of 
Dr.  Briggs,  but  contented  himself  mainly  with  reit 
ating  statements  which  to  an  unbiassed  onlooker,  the 
address  of  Dr.  Briggs  had  wholly  disproved.  In  any 
particular  in  which  Colonel  McCook  did  reargue  1  lie- 
case,  his  reasoning  seemed  strangely  fallacious.  Take 
the  following  as  an  example.  \h\  Briggs  had  been 
charged  with  heresy  for  having  used  certain  words 
which  appeared  to  teach  heresy.  In  his  defence  he 
showed  that  a  wrong  construction  had  been  put  upon 
his  words  and  explained  their  real  meaning,  and  the 
sense  in  whicb  they  were  used.  Other  words  of  his 
which  he  acknowledged  had  he-en  correctly  under- 
stood, he  showed  did  not  teach  any  doctrine  contrary 
to  the  Westminster  standards,  hi  his  reply  Colonel 
McCook  reasoned  as  follows:  — 

"When  the  sufficiency  in  form  and  legal  effect  of  the 
charges  and  specifications  i-  sustained,  it  has  been  decided 
that  if  the  accused  uttered  the  word-;  found  in  the  specifi- 
cations, he  is  guilty  of  an  offence.  Otherwise  he  would 
not  he  put  on  his  defence." 


ATTITUDE  OF  "A  STRANGER."  37 

It  was  plain  that  Colonel  McCook  had  quite  mis- 
taken the  meaning  of  sustaining  the  "  sufficiency  in 
form  and  legal  effect  "  of  charges  and  specifications  ; 
he  regarded  it  as  equivalent  to  sustaining  the  charges 
and  specifications  themselves.  He  accordingly  rea- 
soned as  follows :  — 

"What  then  remained  for  the  Prosecuting  Committee 
to  prove  ?  Simply  that  the  accused  had  written  such  and 
such  words.  The  merits  of  the  case  refer  simply  to 
the  question  of  fact.  But  the  fact  was  admitted  by  the 
accused  that  he  had  written  the  words  quoted  in  the  spe- 
cifications. The  proof  was  complete.  The  verdict  (of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York)  should  have  been  guilty,  and 
the  charges  and  specifications  should  have  been  sustained. 
The  case  on  its  merits  is  a  jury  case.  It  is  a  question  of 
fact  not  of  law.  The  peculiarity  of  the  case  before  you 
is  that  the  utterances  of  the  accused  relied  upon  by  the 
prosecuting  committee  to  sustain  the  charges  have  all 
been  admitted  by  him.  Did  he  utter  them  or  not?  That 
was  the  question  on  its  merits.  There  was  no  question  of 
fact  but  that.  The  facts  were  admitted  and  the  only  course 
left  to  the  court  was  to  bring  in  a  verdict  of  guilty." 

I  was  impressed  at  once  with  the  strangeness  of 
these  statements  by  Colonel  McCook,  and  with  the  re- 
markable confirmation  they  furnished  of  the  impres- 
sion I  had  reluctantly  received  from  all  the  preceding 
arguments  of  the  prosecution,  namely,  that  they  were 
calculated  to  "  make  a  man  an  offender  for  a  word," 
—  to  condemn  him  for  his  language,  not  as  he  under- 
stood it  and  intended  it  to  be  understood  by  others, 
but  as  the  prosecution  saw  fit  to  interpret  it,  —  to 


38  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

condemn  him  upon  the  accusation  simply,  and  not 
upon  the  evidence. 

From  this  time  onward  I  found  myself  no  longer 
neutral  as  an  onlooker.  I  was,  both  by  conviction  as 
to  the  merits  of  the  case,  and  from  a  sense  of  fairness, 
on  the  side  of  the  accused. 

This  may  possibly  have  had  some  influence  upon 
my  opinion  of  the  views  and  arguments  subsequently 
presented  by  members  of  the  court.  Be  this  as  it 
may,  those  who  spoke  as  representing  the  views  of 
the  minority  appeared  to  see  the  case  from  the  same 
point  of  view  with  myself,  and  to  reason  correctly, 
while  the  representatives  of  the  majority  seemed  to 
view  it  from  a  wholly  different  standpoint  and  to 
reason  accordingly. 

Having  had  an  opportunity,  since  the  close  of  the 
Assembly,  of  reviewing  at  leisure  the  official  report 
of  the  Assembly  with  other  necessary  documents,  I 
have  found  that  the  impressions  formed  during  the 
trial  were  not  only  correct,  but  that  they  have  been 
much  deepened  by  a  careful  perusal  of  all  the  argu- 
ments and  evidence  presented  before  the  court :  and  I 
cannot  but  believe  that,  upon  a  calm  review  of  the  whole 
case,  in  a  similar  way,  all  thoughtful  and  unprejudiced 
persons  would  be  convinced  that  in  condemning  and 
suspending  the  Rev.  Professor  Briggs,  the  Washing- 
ton Assembly  inadvertently  committed  a  grave  mis- 
take,—  a  mistake  which  some  who  voted  with  the 
majority  will  soon  be  ready  to  acknowledge,  and 
which  the  great  American  Presbyterian  Church  will 
not  allow  to  remain  long  uncorrected. 


FIRST  CHARGE.  39 


CHAPTER  V. 

FIRST  charge:   the  reason  a  fountain  of  divine 

AUTHORITY. 

THE  first  charge  preferred  against  Dr.  Briggs  was, 
that  he  taught,  "  that  the  reason  is  a  fountain 
of  divine  authority  which  may  and  does  savingly  en- 
lighten men,  even  such  men  as  reject  the  Scriptures 
as  the  authoritative  proclamation  of  the  Will  of  God, 
and  reject  also  the  way  of  salvation  through  the  medi- 
ation and  sacrifice  of  the  Son  of  God  as  revealed 
therein."     This  is  a  statement  of  Dr.  BrioW  alleged 

DO  O 

teaching  made  by  the  prosecuting  committee.  He 
never  made  such  a  statement  himself.  He  repudiated 
the  above  statement  as  being  wholly  wrong.  What 
he  said  in  his  inaugural  was  that  "  there  arc  histori- 
cally three  great  fountains  of  divine  authority,  the 
Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason."  From  this 
statement  of  fact  on  the  part  of  Dr.  Briggs,  and  from 
arguments  and  illustrations  connected  witli  it  in  his 
inaugural,  the  prosecuting  committee  framed  the 
above  charge.  Dr.  Lampe  on  behalf  of  the  prosecut- 
ing committee  opened  his  argument  in  support  of  this 
charge  with  the  following  assertion,  which  notwith- 
standing  his  knowledge  of  Dr.  Briggs'  disavowal  of  it, 
he  regarded  as  a  valid  inference :  — 


40  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BR  JOGS. 

"The  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason,  then,  are 
equal  in  being  great  fountains  of  divine  authority.  The 
quality  of  divinity  and  the  right  of  divine  authority  be- 
long alike  to  all  three  ;  as  such  each  can  be  to  man  an 
infallible  guide  of  life,  and  speak  to  him  with  eternal 
and  immutable  certainty,  so  that  he  can  yield  to  each 
implicit  obedience,  rest  on  each  with  loving  certainty,  and 
build  with  joyous  confidence." 

This  is,  at  the  outset,  a  remarkable  distortion  of 
the  views  of  Dr.  Briggs,  arising  from  a  refusal  to 
accept  his  explanation  of  the  meaning  of  a  single 
word,  and  a  consequent  failure  to  understand  the 
scope  of  his  argument. 

Dr.  Briggs  never  said,  and  does  not  hold  that  the 
Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason  are  equal.  He 
strongly  maintains  the  very  reverse  of  this.  Over 
and  over,  again  and  again,  in  language  as  clear  and 
explicit  as  a  man  could  use,  has  he  denied  this  equality 
of  the  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason.  lie  has 
repeatedly  denied  it  in  his  published  writings,  and  he 
denied  it  again  and  again  on  the  floor  of  the  General 
Assembly.  When  he  found  that  his  language  in 
the  inaugural  had  been  misunderstood  he  hastened 
to  correct  this  misunderstanding  in  the  appendix 
to  the  second  edition  of  the  inaugural  in  these 
words :  — 

u  I  did  not  say,  and  I  did  not  give  any  one  the  right 
to  infer  from  anything  whatever  in  the  inaugural  address 
or  in  any  of  my  writings  that  I  co-ordinated  the  Bible, 
the  Church,  and  the  Keason." 


FIRST  CHARGE.  41 

He  denied  this  misstatement  of  his  teaching  again 
in  his  cres  on  the  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Rea- 

son, in  which  he  states  directly  that  he  has  known  of 
no  one  who  "  has  made  Bible,  Church,  and  Reason  co- 
ordinate, that  is,  on  the  same  level,  in  the  same  order 
of  equal  independent  authority."  He  uttered  these 
sentiments  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly  with  all  the 
earnestness  he  could  command.  How,  in  the  face  of 
all  these  statements  and  explanations,  the  prosecuting 
committee  could  adhere  to  their  statement  to  the  con- 
trary, it  is  difficult  to  understand.  It  seems  to  be 
accounted  for  in  this  way  :  they  regarded  their  own 
inferences  which  they  drew  from  the  language  of  Dr. 
Briggs  as  more  trustworthy  than  Dr.  Briggs'  own 
understanding  of  his  language. 

The  same  thing  may  be  true  of  the  next  mis- 
statement in  this  opening  utterance  of  Dr.  Lampe ; 
namely,  that  "  each  [of  the  three,  the  Bible,  the 
Church,  and  the  Reason]  can  be  to  man  an  infallible 
guide  of  life."  In  his  very  next  sentence  Dr.  Lampe 
admits  that  Dr.  Briggs  does  not  hold  that  the  three 
are  equal,  or  that  each  of  them  is  an  infallible  guide. 
He  discloses  the  fact  that  this  is  simply  his  own 
inference  from  Dr.  Briggs'  language.  He  says  :  "  It 
does  not  in  the  least  relieve  the  matter  to  say  that 
the  Bible  differs  from  the  other  two  fountains  of 
divine  authority  in  being  in  addition  also  an  infallible 
rule  of  faith  and  practice." 

The  following  quotation  from  Dr.  Briggs'  argu- 
ment gives  in  a  word  his  true  position  with  respect 
to  the  Bible  and  the  Reason :  — 


42  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

"Holy  Scripture  is  that  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit 
speaks,  and  He  speaks  bearing  witness  by  and  with  the 
Word  in  the  heart  of  the  believer.  The  Holy  Spirit 
speaks  to  the  reason  of  the  godly  man  through  Holy 
Scripture,  and  gives  him  the  ultimate  decision  in  all 
matters  of  faith  and  practice.  I  never  taught  any  other 
doctrine.  If  any  one  thinks  that  this  doctrine  conflicts 
with  the  doctrine  that  the  reason  is  a  great  fountain  of 
divine  authority,  he  thinks  wrongly  and  is  apart  from  the 
true  lines  of  logical  reasoning.  The  Confession  does  not 
here  say  that  the  Holy  Spirit  does  not  speak  in  the  reason 
apart  from  Holy  Scripture,  and,  so  speaking,  speak  with 
divine  authority.  It  is  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the 
Supreme  Judge.  He  is  the  Supreme  Judge  wherever, 
whenever,  and  in  whatever  form  He  speaks.  The  Con- 
fession is  only  concerned  to  teach  that  it  is  when  speaking 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures  that  He  is  the  Supreme  Judge, 
and  that  when  so  speaking  the  Church  must  yield  alle- 
giance, whatever  may  have  been  the  decrees  of  councils 
or  opinions  of  ancient  writers,  and  that  private  spirits 
must  obey,  whatever  the  doctrine  of  men  may  have  been; 
in  other  words,  that  Church  and  Reason  must  yield  to 
the  Supreme  Judge,  the  Holy  Spirit,  when  speaking  in 
Holy  Scripture.  I  have  not  said  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
speaks  the  final  word  in  the  reason,  to  which  the  Church 
and  the  Bible  must  yield.  I  have  not  exalted  the  reason 
over  the  Bible.     I  am  no  rationalist. 

"It  is  the  teaching  of  the  Confession  to  which  I  sub- 
scribe that  the  Holy  Spirit,  when  He  speaks  the  infal- 
lible word  in  Holy  Scripture,  always  speaks  through 
the  Scriptures  to  the  reason,  and  by  His  inward  work 
in  the  heart,  in  the  reason,  gives  certainty,  assurance, 
and  infallible  conviction  of  the  truth  and  grace  of  God. 


FIRST  CHARGE.  43 

There  is  no  conflict  between  reason  and  Scripture  in  such 
a  sense.  There  can  be  none.  The  Holy  Spirit  unites 
them  in  an  infallible  bond  of  certainty. " 

It  might  be  thought  that,  in  view  of  this  explana- 
tion by  Dr.  Briggs,  the  Prosecuting  Committee  would 
cease  to  contend  that  he  teaches  that  the  reason  is 
a  fountain  of  divine  authority  on  an  equality  with  the 
Bible,  and  admit  that  he  teaches  that  reason  must 
bow  to  Holy  Scripture  as  the  voice  of  the  Spirit. 
Yet  the  prosecution  adhere  to  their  contention. 
They  go  farther,  and  deny  that  the  reason  can  be 
a  fountain  of  divine  authority  in  any  sense.  In  the 
face  of  all  the  explanations  made  by  Dr.  Briggs, 
they  mistake  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  fountain." 
They  evidently  think  it  an  original  source,  which 
a  fountain  never  is.  There  is  always  a  great  source 
of  supply  back  of  a  fountain,  by  which  it  is  fed.  It 
is  really  only  a  channel  between  the  original  source 
and  the  outside  world.  It  is  in  this  sense  that  Dr. 
Briggs  uses  the  word  "  fountain,''  as  he  repeatedly 
explained  to  the  Assembly.  He  said :  "I  do  not 
mean  that  there  is  any  original  divine  authority  in 
the  human  reason,  or  that  there  is  any  original  divine 
authority  in  the  Christian  Church,  but  simply  that 
they  are  channels,  fountains,  media,  through  which 
God's  Holy  Spirit  speaks  to  men."  At  another  time, 
in  answer  to  a  request  he  had  made  that  if  any 
one  had  any  question  to  ask  he  would  send  it 
up  in  writing,  he  received  another  question  regard- 
ing his  use  of  the  word  "  fountain ; "  in  answering 


44  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

which,  before   resuming  his   argument   after   recess, 
he  said :  — 

" 1  have  just  received  a  question  in  regard  to  the 
matter  I  have  passed  oyer,  which,  in  accordance  with  my 
promise,  I  will   first  answer. 

"'Would  you  kindly  give  me  your  interpretation  of 
the  word  fountain  as  you  use  it,  and  oblige?' 

"I  thought  I  had  done  this,  but  it  seems  exceedingly 
difficult  to  make  my  meaning  plain.  I  use  'fountain' 
not  in  the  sense  of  the  original  source;  because,  as  T  have 
said,  God  alone  is  the  original  source.  But  I  use  'foun- 
tain5 in  tbe  figurative  sense,  as  that  out  of  which  the 
waters  flow,  synonymous  with  'channel'  and  'medium.' 
God  is  the  only  original  source.  The  Bible,  the  Church, 
and  the  Reason  are  channels,  means  of  grace,  by  which 
God  communicates  His  Divine  authority  to  men.  I  hope 
I  have  made  myself  plain." 

On  what  ground  tbe  prosecution  refused  to  accept 
these  explanations,  it  is  difficult  to  understand. 

The  Prosecuting  Committee  make  another  mistake 
in  tbe  use  of  words.  They  seem  to  regard  the  Bible 
as  an  original  source,  an  infallible  source,  instead  of 
an  infallible  fountain  issuing  forth  from  God,  the 
great  Source  of  all  light  and  life.  Dr.  Briggs  called 
attention  to  this  mistake,  in  his  defence  before  the 
Assembly,  as  follows  :  — 

"It  seems  to  me  that  Dr.  Lampe  and  most  of  my  critics 
make  the  serious  mistake  of  confounding  the  Original 
Source  of  all  authority  with  the  fountain  of  authority. 
It  seems  to  me  that  the  prosecution  make  the  Bible  the 
infallible  source  of  authority,  instead  of  [regarding  God 


FIRST  CHARGE.  45 

as]  speaking  through  the  Bible,  as  I  do;  and  there- 
fore they  do  not  understand  ray  position  when  I  say 
that  the  Reason  and  the  Church  are  fountains  of  divine 
authority." 

Mistaking  the  meaning  of  the  figurative  term  "  foun- 
tain," the  Prosecuting  Committee  have  been  unable  to 
understand  how  Dr.  Briggs  could  hold  that  the  Church 
and  the  Reason  can  be  fountains  of  authority  without 
being  at  the  same  time  infallible  guides,  —  rules  of 
faith  and  practice  like  the  Bible.  Yet  they  should 
have  had  no  such  difficulty.  They  should  have  under- 
stood that  the  Bible  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine 
authority.  —  the  medium  through  which  God  speaks 
to  man ;  and  that  as  such  a  medium  it  contains  within 
itself  all  that  God  has  to  say  to  mankind  for  their 
guidance ;  and  that  the  Church  and  the  Reason  are 
great  fountains  of  divine  authority,  —  media  through 
which  God's  Spirit  speaks  to  man,  without  containing 
within  them  all,  or  anything  approaching  to  all  that 
God  has  to  say  to  mankind  for  their  guidance. 

So  mistaking  the  use  Dr.  Briggs  makes  of  the  fig- 
urative term  "fountain"  as  applied  to  the  reason,  the 
Prosecuting  Committee  argue  against  the  idea  that  the 
reason  can  be  a  fountain  of  authority  at  all.  But  a 
glance  at  their  reasoning  shows  that  they  are  arguing 
against  the  doctrine  that  the  reason  is  a  source  of 
divine  authority,  and  not  simply  a  channel.  If  not 
they  are  themselves  guilty  of  heresy,  as  Dr.  Briggs 
has  shown  with  great  clearness.  He  shows  that  the 
Confession  distinctly  recognizes  the  reason  as  a  great 


46  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

fountain  of  divine  authority.  "  The  prosecution,"  he 
says,  — 

"  shut  their  eyes  to  seven  chapters  of  the  Confession  — 
10,  13,  14,  16,  18,  20,  and  26  — when  they  represent  that 
my  doctrine  of  the  reason  is  erroneous.  In  their  original 
charges  they  state  that  I  '  strike  at  the  vitals  of  religion ' 
in  teaching  that  the  reason  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine 
authority.  I  do  indeed  strike  at  the  vitals  of  religion,  but 
in  a  sense  quite  different  from  that  in  their  minds;  for  this 
doctrine  so  strikes  at  the  vitals  of  religion  that  there  can 
be  no  vital  religion  without  it." 

By  means  of  argument  based  upon  the  Bible,  the 
Confession,  and  the  most  sacred  experiences  of  God's 
children,  Dr.  Briggs  makes  it  plain  that  the  reason  is 
a  necessary  medium  through  which  God  speaks  to 
man.  But  his  argument  is  all  lost  upon  his  opponents, 
for  their  minds  are  full  of  a  different  idea,  —  namely, 
the  idea  that  the  reason  is  not  of  itself  a  source  of  divine 
authority. 

But  Dr.  Briggs,  having  announced  the  simple  truth 
that  the  Spirit  of  God  can  and  does  speak  to  men 
through  their  reason,  including  their  consciences  and 
whole  moral  natures,  and  having  shown  that  it  is 
through  the  reason,  in  this  broad  sense,  that  the  Spirit 
applies  the  Word  of  God  savingly  to  the  hearts  and 
lives  of  men,  goes  further,  and  mentions  that  where 
there  is  no  knowledge  of  the  Word  of  God,  nor  ace 
to  it,  as  in  the  case  of  the  heathen,  the  Spirit  of 
God  can  speak  authoritatively  to  the  human  soul 
through   the  reason  as   it   is  exercised  in  consider- 


FIRST  CHARGE.  47 

ing  such  revelations  of  God  as  are  within  its  reach. 
When  the  orthodoxy  of  this  position  is  challenged  by 
his  opponents,  —  and  surely  it  is  strange  that  it  should 
have  been  challenged,  —  Dr.  Briggs  feels  called  upon 
to  defend  it,  and  in  doing  so  appeals  to  the  inspired 
Word  as  follows  :  — 

"  We  appeal  to  the  statement  of  Holy  Scripture  respect- 
ing those  outside  the  visible  Kingdom  of  God,  and  there- 
fore excluded  from  contact  with  Holy  Scripture  and  Church. 
What  shall  we  say  to  the  teaching  of  Paul  ?  '  And  He  made 
of  one  every  nation  of  men  for  to  dwell  on  all  the  face  of  the 
earth,  having  determined  their  appointed  seasons,  and  the 
bounds  of  their  habitation;  that  they  should  seek  God,  if 
haply  they  might  feel  after  Him  and  find  Him,  though  He 
is  not  far  from  each  one  of  us ;  for  in  Him  we  live  and  move 
and  have  our  being;  as  certain  even  of  your  own  poets  have 
said,  For  we  are  also  His  offspring.'  Do  none  of  these 
offspring  of  God  among  the  heathen  feel  after  Him  ?  Do 
those  who  feel  fail  to  find  Him  ?  Do  none  of  those  the 
root  of  whose  being  is  God  look  to  the  root  and  become 
conscious  of  that  fountain  of  life  springing  up  within 
them  ?  Or  are  these  words  of  Paul  a  fancy  incapable  of 
realization,  a  dream  which  finds  no  counterpart  in  the 
real  heathen  man  ? 

"  What  of  the  preaching  of  Peter  ?  '  Of  a  truth  I  per- 
ceive that  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons,  but  in  every 
nation  lie  that  feareth  Him  and  worketh  righteousness  is  ac- 
ceptable to  Him.'  Are  there  no  God-fearing  men  among  the 
nations  who  hold  to  the  ethnic  religions  ?  Are  there  none 
who  give  alms  and  work  righteousness  ?  Was  Peter  mis- 
taken ?  Does  God  really  respect  persons,  and  reject  a  man 
because  he  was  not  born  a  Hebrew  or  because  he  was  not 


48  TRIAL  OF  DR    BRIGGS. 

educated  in  Christian  lands  ?  Waa  Cornelius  the  only 
illustration  of  this  profound  utterance  ?  And  was  he  ac- 
cepted simply  because  he  might  have  been  a  pi 

u  What  of  the  preaching  of  Jesus  ?  'The  men  of  Nine- 
veh shall  stand  up  in  the  judgment  with  this  generation 
and  shall  condemn  it  because  they  repented  at  the  preach- 
ing of  Jonah;  and  behold,  a  greater  than  Jonah  is  here. 
The  queen  of  the  South  shall  rise  up  in  the  judgment  with 
this  generation  and  shall  condemn  it;  for  she  came  from 
the  ends  of  the  earth  to  hear  the  wisdom  of  Solomon;  and 
behold,  a  greater  than  Solomon  is  here.'  If  the  proud 
Assyrians,  the  inhabitants  of  Nineveh,  were  not  excluded 
from  repentance  because  they  had  no  Bible  and  were  hos- 
tile to  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  why  should  the  inhabitants 
of  any  other  metropolis  of  the  ethnic  religions  be  excluded 
if  they  repent  according  to  the  teaching  they  have  ?  Is 
the  Oriental  queen  the  only  potentate  who  has  found  I 
by  wisdom  outside  the  kingdom  ?  True,  the  one  heard 
the  preaching  of  Jonah,  and  the  other  the  wisdom 
mon.  But  there  is  no  evidence  that  either  of  them  acce; 
Holy  Scripture,  or  united  with  Holy  Church."' 

At  another  stage  of  his  argument  Dr.  Briggs  quoted 
from  the  Confession,  in  support  of  his  position,  the 
words,  — 

"  Although  the  light  of  nature  and  the  works  of  crea- 
tion and  Providence  do  so  far  manifest  the  greatness  and 
power  of  God  as  to  leave  man  inexcusable,'"  and  added: 
"Listen  to  Holy  Scripture :  '  For  when  the  Gentiles,  which 
have  not  the  law,  do  by  nature  the  things  contained  in  the 
law,  these  not  having  the  law  are  a  law  unto  themse' 
which  show  the  works  of  the  law  written  in  their  hearts, 


FIRST  CHARGE.  49 

their  conscience  also  bearing  witness,  and  their  thoughts 
the  meanwhile  accusing  or  else  excusing  one  another.'  " 

He  also  referred  to  Romans  i.  19-20  :  — 

"  Because  that  which  may  be  known  of  God  is  manifest 
in  them  ;  for  God  hath  showed  it  unto  them.  For  the  in- 
visible things  of  Him  from  the  creation  of  the  world  are 
clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the  things  that  are  made, 
even  his  eternal  power  and  Godhead;  so  that  they  are  with- 
out excuse." 

The  Prosecuting  Committee  utterly  failed  to  meet 
Dr.  Briggs  here.  They  said  several  things  as  if 
in  reply  ;  but  their  statements  are  so  indefinite  and 
conflicting  that  it  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  de- 
termine with  any  degree  of  certainty  whether  they 
accept  Dr.  Briggs'  reasoning  and  the  teaching  of 
Scripture  regarding  the  possibility  of  individuals 
among  the  heathen  being  saved  by  the  Spirit  work- 
ing through  their  reason,  or  whether  they  reject  this 
doctrine.  The  substance  of  what  they  say  in  reply, 
through  Dr.  Lampe,  is  contained  in  the  following  non- 
committal and  mutually  contradictory  sentences : 

"That  Dr.  Briggs  conceives  of  each  of  these  fountains 
of  divine  authority  as  capable  of  imparting  [Dr.  Lampe 
still  thinks  of  fountains  as  sources,  having  the  power  in 
themselves  of  imparting]  a  saving  knowledge  of  God,  is 
evident  from  his  own  statements  on  the  subject.  He  says: 
'  Unless  God's  authority  is  discerned  in  the  forms  of  the 
reason  there  is  no  ground  upon  which  any  of  the  heathen 
could  ever  have  been  saved,   for  they  know  nothing  of 

4 


50  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

Bible  or  Church.  If  they  are  not  savingly  enlightened 
by  the  Light  of  the  world  in  the  forms  of  the  reason  the 
whole  heat  lion  world  is  lost  forever.'  (Inaug.  2d  ed.  pp. 
88,  89.)  The  divine  authority  in  the  reason  therefore 
does  savingly  enlighten,  in  the  view  of  Dr.  Briggs." 

"The  facts  [says  Dr.  Lampe]  that  God  can  give  evi- 
dence of  himself  to  the  man's  soul,  and  that  the  man  hat 
the  power  of  certifying  truth,  that  he  can  receive  commu- 
nications from  God,  and  be  the  subject  of  gracious  influ- 
ences, show  indeed,  that  as  created  in  the  image  of  God, 
man  is  endowed  with  a  moral  nature,  but  does  not  at 
all  prove  that  his  reason  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine 
authority." 

If  Dr.  Lampe  had  grasped  the  proper  meaning  of 
the  word  "  fountain,"  he  would  have  seen  that  this 
reasoning  is  self-contradictory.  It  both  accepts  Dr. 
Briggs'  view  and  rejects  it.  But  neither  of  the  above 
quotations  from  Dr.  Lampe's  argument  gives  any 
definite  information  as  to  whether  the  Prosecuting 
Committee  agree  with  Dr.  Briggs'  view  of  the  pos- 
sible salvation  of  a  heathen  without  the  Bible.  But 
how  about  the  following  ?  — 

"  Christ  is  supreme  in  the  Church  and  in  all  matters  of 
faith  and  life.  But  we  know  nothing  about  Him  except 
through  the  Bible  story.  The  truth  by  means  of  which 
He  saves  and  assures  His  people  is  treasured  up  in  the 
Scriptures  so  that  we  are  shut  up  to  them,  both  for  a  sav- 
ing knowledge  of  God  and  for  assurance.  The  Bible 
alone  tells  us  what  we  need  to  know  about  God,  ourselves, 
the  plan  of  salvation,  our  duty,  and  the  conditions  of 
eternal  life  and  destiny.     For  this  reason  the  Bible  alone, 


FIRST  CHARGE.  51 

as  against  the  Church  and  Reason,  gives  light  in  the  moral 
and  spiritual  realm." 

This  quotation  seems  to  indicate  plainly  that  in  the 
opinion  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee  there  is  no  sal- 
vation for  any  one  apart  from  a  personal  knowledge 
of  the  Scriptures,  —  that  all  the  heathen,  not  having 
access  to  the  written  Word  of  God,  must  be  lost.  That 
this  is  the  view  of  the  committee  would  seem  to  be 
confirmed  by  this  further  statement  by  Dr.  Lampe  : 

"The  Scripture  expressly  declares  that  men  by  wisdom 
have  not  known  God.  History  shows  that  to  be  abso- 
lutely true.  Reason,  unaided  by  revealed  truth,  has 
never  been  able  to  bring  man  out  of  the  bondage  of  sin  to 
God.  And  therefore  '  it  pleased  God  by  the  foolishness  of 
preaching  to  save  them  that  believe. '  God  begets  men  to 
a  new  life  by  the  word  of  truth  and  saves  them  by  the 
belief  of  that  truth;  for  how  shall  they  believe  on  him  of 
whom  they  have  not  heard,  and  how  shall  they  hear  with- 
out a  preacher  ?  "  (Rom.  x.  14.) 

This  would  seem  to  leave  no  doubt  as  to  the  view 
of  the  Committee.  But  to  our  surprise,  in  the 
very  next  sentence  Dr.  Lampe  takes  it  all  back, 
shifts  his  argument  to  a  different  point  of  the  com- 
pass, and  sets  out  to  meet  a  wholly  different  issue, 
as  follows  :  — 

"  Any  discussion  in  respect  to  the  salvation  of  infants, 
incapables,  and  exceptional  cases  of  heathen  through  the 
working  of  the  Divine  Spirit  is  immaterial  here;  no 
question    is  raised  in  the  charges  in  reference  to    them. 


52  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

The  matter  in  hand  is  wholly  different.  Can  one  having 
the  Bible  and  rejecting  it  find  the  way  to  God  through 
either  Church  or  Reason?  " 

This  cannot  but  be  regarded  as  a  very  unsatisfac- 
tory way  of  reasoning.  Before  taking  up  this  new 
question  Dr.  Lampe  has  raised,  let  us  try  to  get  our 
bearings.  Let  us  have  something  definite  as  to  the 
supremacy  of  Christ  and  the  salvation  of  individuals 
through  Him  apart  from  a  knowledge  of  written 
revelation.  We  know  that  Christ  is  the  only  Re- 
deemer of  mankind  ;  that  "  there  is  none  other  name 
under  heaven  given  among  men  whereby  we  must  be 
saved."  But  we  are  taught  also  that  it  is  not  an  accu- 
rate knowledge  of  all  the  facts  connected  with  the  life 
and  death  of  Jesus  that  saves  ;  nor  is  it  a  perfect 
acquaintance  with  the  plan  of  redemption  revealed  in 
Christ ;  but  it  is  that  intimate  relation  of  the  heart 
and  life  to  God  which,  whether  man  fully  understands 
the  basis  of  it  or  not,  the  name  of  Jesus  and  that  alone 
has  made  it  possible  either  for  man  to  enter  into  or  for 
God  to  accept.  When  God  calls  little  children  away 
from  this  world  to  Himself,  we  believe  they  are  saved, 
though  they  never  understood  or  even  heard  the 
precious  name ;  yet  we  believe  their  salvation  is  at- 
tributable solely  to  the  fact  that  Jesus  is  the  "  One 
Mediator  between  God  and  men."  When  a  heathen 
who  has  never  heard  the  gospel  preached  reads  care- 
fully by  the  light  of  nature  until  he  learns  to  under- 
stand something  of  the  invisible  things  of  God  by  the 
things  that   are   made,  and   in  his  consciousness  of 


FIRST  CHARGE.  53 

guilt  in  the  sight  of  his  Maker  becomes  the  subject 
of  conviction  of  sin  through  the  power  of  that  Spirit 
who  worketh  even  as  the  wind  bloweth,  confesses  his 
sin  in  the  sight  of  Heaven,  seeks  forgiveness  of  the 
Great  God,  reposes  confidence  in  Him,  and  manifests 
his  faith  by  working  righteousness,  we  are  taught  to 
believe  that  God,  in  accordance  with  His  own  plan  of 
redemption  which  He  perfectly  understands,  can  ac- 
cept that  man's  faith,  even  though  the  man  himself 
may  not  properly  understand  the  reason  why.  We 
know  that  saving  faith  does  not  "  stand  in  the  wis- 
dom of  men,  but  in  the  power  of  God  ;  "  that  salva- 
tion is  not  based  upon  works,  whether  of  the  hands  or 
of  the  head,  but  upon  Divine  wisdom  and  grace  ;  and 
that  the  essential  thing  on  man's  part  is  that  "  faith 
which  worketh  by  love,"  —  faith,  not  in  a  plan,  but  in 
a  person ;  confidence,  not  in  a  creed,  but  in  God. 

This  is  a  Scriptural  and  orthodox  statement  of  the 
doctrine  at  issue.  It  is  in  accord  with  the  Westmin- 
ster Confession,  chapter  v.,  section  iii.,  which  states 
that  "  God,  in  His  ordinary  providence,  maketh  use  of 
means,  yet  is  free  to  work  without,  above,  and  against 
them,  at  His  pleasure."  It  agrees  also  with  chapter  x., 
section  iv.,  where  it  is  set  forth  that  men  not  profess- 
ing the  Christian  religion  cannot  be  saved  in  any  other 
way  whatsoever  than  through  Christ,  "  be  they  ever 
so  diligent  to  frame  their  lives  according  to  the  light 
of  nature  and  the  law  of  the  religion  they  do  profess ; 
and  to  assert  and  maintain  that  they  may  is  very  per- 
nicious and  to  be  detested."  How,  then,  are  we  to 
understand  the  first  sentence  of  the  Confession,  which 


.'A  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIG 

affirms  that  the  light  of  nature  and  the  works  of  crea- 
tion and  providence  -are  not  suffic  _>e  that 
knowledge  of  God  and  of  His  will  wL  sary 
unto  salvation  .' "     We  are  to  understand  these  words 
to  mean,  first,  that  the  light  of  nature  and  the  works 
of  creation  and  provides              not  sufficient  to  - 
men  apart  from  th< 
second,  that  even  though,  througl 
working   of   His  Spirit,  they  may   be  the   means  of 
saving  grace  to  some  individual  s  effi- 
cient, in  the  ordinary  course  of  providence,  and  the 
ordinary  working  of  the  Hoi                                all  man- 
kind, or  even  any  considerable  number  of  our  race, 
to  repent  and  turn  unto  God :  and  third,  that  t 
are  not  sufficient,  as  a  revelation  of  the  will 
"  for   the  more  sure  establishment   and   comfort  of 
the  Church  against  the  corruption  of  the  flesh  and 
the  malice  of  Satan  and  of  the  world ; M    in  other 
words,  they  are  not  sufficient  as  u  a  rule  of  faith  and 
practice." 

This  is  the  doctrine  taught  by  Professor  B 
is  the  doctrine  taught  by  orthodox  ministers  in  the 
several  branches  of  the  great  P  an  Church. 

It  is  possibly  the  doctrine  held  by  the  members  of 
the  Prosecuting  Committee  themselv-  gh  it  may 

have  been  obscured  to  them  for  the  inom  heir 

confusion  of  terms  and  their  inadvertent  misapplica- 
tion of  Scriptur  for  example,  by  taking  the 
phrase  "the  world  by  wisdom  km.  "  to 
mean  that  no  individual  of  the  human  family  has 
ever  been   saved   without    a   personal   knowi 


FIKST  CHARGE.  55 

Holy  Scripture,  or  taking  the  words  "faith  cometh 
by  hearing"  to  mean  that  faith  can  come  only  by 
hearing  in  the  literal  sense  of  the  word. 

Having  arrived  at  a  definite  understanding  regard- 
ing this  important  question,  which  the  Prosecuting 
Committee  discussed  for  a  time  and  then  abandoned 
as  immaterial,  saying  that  no  question  is  raised s  in 
the  charges  in  reference  to  it,  we  turn  to  the  consid- 
eration of  what  Dr.  Lampe  calls  the  "  wholly  differ- 
ent" "matter  in  hand,"  namely,  "Can  one  having  the 
Bible  and  rejecting  it  find  the  way  to  God  through 
either  Church  or  Reason  ?  "  This  question  was  neither 
raised  nor  discussed  by  Dr.  Briggs.  It  is  raised  by 
the  Prosecuting  Committee,  their  implication  being 
that  Dr.  Briggs  would  answer  it  in  the  affirmative. 
This  is  one  of  the  inferences  they  draw  from  their 
view  of  his  argument. 

Dr.  Briggs  was  incidentally  dealing  with  the  ques- 
tion, May  one  who  fails  to  find  religious  certainty  by 
his  use  of  the  Bible  find  it  through  the  processes  of 
the  reason  ?  And  lie  instanced  Martineau  as  one  who 
claimed  that  he  did, —  "that  he  found  God  enthroned 
in  his  own  soul."  The  scope  of  Dr.  Briggs'  argument 
shows  that  he  believed  that  Martineau  may  have 
been  right  in  this  opinion  of  the  way  in  which  he  had 
found  certainty. 

The  prosecution  claim  that,  as  they  have  learned 
from  Martineau's  writings  that  he  is  one  of  those  who 
"  reject  the  Scriptures  as  the  authoritative  proclama- 
tion of  the  will  of  God,  and  the  way  of  salvation 
through  the  mediation  and  sacrifice  of  the  Son  of 


56  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

God  as  revealed  therein,"  Dr.  Briggs  must  be  held  as 
arguing  that  one  who  rejects  the  Scriptures  can  find 
the  way  to  God  through  the  reason. 

Dr.  Briggs  replies  that  the  question  of  Martincau's 
acceptance  or  rejection  of  the  Bible  was  not  what  was 
before  his  mind  in  adducing  the  case  of  Martineau  as 
an  illustration  of  a  man  finding  religious  certainty 
through  the  forms  of  the  reason,  and  intimates  that 
if  this  view  of  Martincau's  belief  be  emphasized  then 
the  illustration  he  has  used  is  a  bad  one.  But,  as 
Dr.  Briggs  remarks,  "  a  bad  example  may  discredit  a 
proposition,  but  it  does  not  disprove  it."  It  may  still 
be  true  that  a  man  who  fails  to  find  religious  certainty 
by  his  use  of  the  Bible  may  find  it  by  the  use  of  his 
reason.  Not  only  may  a  man  reach  certainty  in  this 
way,  but  many  do.  This  is  a  matter  of  Christian 
experience. 

I  did  not  find  religious  certainty  by  my  direct  read- 
ing and  study  of  the  Bible.  The  fault  was  no  doubt 
my  own,  but  the  fact  remains.  The  entrance  of  God's 
Word  gave  me  light,  but  not  certainty.  The  light  that 
was  in  me  was  darkness.  The  natural  man  did  not 
receive  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  Doubts  arose 
in  my  mind  as  I  read  the  Word  ;  and  the  more  I  read, 
the  more  numerous  my  doubts  seemed  to  become. 
The  plainest  statements  of  the  Bible  were  dark  to  me. 
I  turned  and  conferred  with  men  who  seemed  to  know 
the  way  to  God.  I  listened  to  their  experiences  and 
reasoning.  I  reasoned  with  them  and  against  them, 
and  often  felt  that  I  had  the  best  of  the  argument.  I 
read  the  works  of  noted  divines,  and  reasoned  with 


FIRST  CHARGE.  57 

their  writings  before  me,  often  reasoning  against  their 
reasoning.  I  finally  took  to  reasoning  with  myself, 
and  with  God  in  whose  existence  I  believed,  though 
I  could  not  understand  His  Word,  nor  trust  Him  as 
my  Friend.  It  was  while  thus  musing  and  reasoning 
alone,  amid  the  darkness  of  night,  that  I  found  cer- 
tainty by  finding  God.  And,  strangely  enough,  it  was 
not  by  my  recalling  any  particular  passage  of  His 
blessed  Word  that  my  doubts  were  dispelled,  but  it 
was  by  thinking  of  His  goodness  in  the  works  of  His 
hands  round  about  me,  and  in  the  heavens  above  my 
head.  Not  till  then  did  I  see  Him  revealed  in  Christ 
as  my  Friend.  From  that  moment  my  heart  was  at 
peace  with  God.  Possibly  another  would  express  it 
better  by  saying,  u  I  found  God  enthroned  in  my 
own  soul.''  By  God's  grace  I  did  not  reject  the  Bible 
and  trust  to  reason  alone,  as  Martineau  is  alleged  to 
have  done.  On  the  contrary,  I  found  the  Scriptures 
to  be  a  full  and  clear  revelation  of  that  which  had  first 
dawned  upon  my  mind  through  the  contemplation  of 
nature,  namely,  the  simple  truth,  "  God  loves  you." 
I  need  not  speak  of  how  much  I  have  learned  to 
prize  and  love  the  blessed  Word  since  that  experi- 
ence of  many  years  ago.  Such  an  experience  is  not 
unique  ;  it  has  been  the  experience  of  thousands  ; 
and  it  illustrates  the  unquestionable  truth  that  God 
places  great  honor  upon  the  poor  remnant  of  likeness 
to  Himself  that  still  remains  in  sinful  man,  and  that 
man's  reason,  including  his  whole  moral  nature,  is  a 
fountain,  channel,  or  medium  through  which  the  Spirit 
of  God  conveys  religious  certainty  to  many  a  soul. 


58  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

But  oven  if  the  Prosecuting  Committee  accept  this 
as  a  confirmation  of  the  correctness  of  Dr.  Briggs' 

view,  they  will  still  fall  back  upon  the  last  offence 
they  allege  against  J)r.  Briggs  under  this  first  charge. 
It  is  an  offence  on  the  score  of  overmuch  charity,  but 
appears  to  be  none  the  less  offensive  to  the  prosecu- 
tion on  this  account.  It  is  stated  in  these  words: 
"Dr.  Briggs  would  not  refuse  those  rationalists  a 
place  among  the  company  of  the  faithful."  This  has 
reference  to  such  men  as  Martineau, —  men  who, 
whatever  may  be  their  errors  of  belief,  fear  God  and 
work  righteousness.  The  prosecution,  as  represented 
by  Dr.  Lampe,  appear  willing  to  admit  of  exceptional 
cases  of  salvation  among  the  heathen  ;  then  surely 
their  charity  should  be  great  enough  to  admit  of 
examples  of  God's  saving  mercy  being  extended  to 
devout  persons  among  the  rationalists.  I  shall  never 
forget  how  noble  that  great  man,  the  late  venerable 
Dr.  Charles  Hodge  of  Princeton,  seemed  when, 
after  exposing  the  heresies  of  one  of  the  greatest  of 
rationalists,  he  added,  "But  I  have  no  doubt  he  is 
now  singing  the  praises  of  Christ  in  heaven."  On 
being  questioned  as  to  how  this  could  be,  since  he 
denied  Christ  on  earth,  his  answer  was  that  "his 
heart  was  right ;  it  was  only  his  head  that  was  wrong. 
He  called  Jesus  a  man,  and  thought  He  was  only 
man,  but  lie  gave  Him  such  homage  as  could  be  paid 
only  to  a  Cod." 

Would  that  all  who  imagine  they  are  treading 
in  the  footsteps  of  the  venerable  Princeton  divine, 
when  they  are  contending  only  for  what  they  believe 


FIEST  CHARGE.  59 

to  be  soundness  in  the  faith,  could  have  the  breadth 
of  view  and  largeness  of  heart  of  that  great  man. 
Soundness  in  the  faith  is  only  part  of  the  soundness 
which  God's  Word  enjoins.  We  are  to  be  "  sound 
in  faith,  in  charity,  in  patience  ; "  and  here  also  a  the 
greatest  of  these  is  charity." 

In  view  of  what  Dr.  Briggs  has  said  of  the  suprem- 
acy of  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  the  hands  of  the  Spirit, 
and  of  its  being  necessary  for  the  reason  to  yield  to 
their  authority  as  the  voice  of  God,  and  of  the  way 
in  which  the  Spirit  addresses  and  assures  the  reason 
through  the  Word  when  the  Word  has  been  read  or 
heard,  no  one  can  rightly  accuse  him  of  intending  to 
teach  by  the  case  of  Martineau  that  he  believes  that 
Martineau  must  have  found  certainty  through  the 
reason  in  opposition  to  the  teaching  of  the  Word  of 
God ;  much  less  can  it  be  claimed  that  he  has  taught, 
as  the  prosecution,  by  misinterpreting  one  of  his  illus- 
trations, have  charged  him  with  teaching,  that  the 
reason  is  a  fountain  of  divine  authority  which  may 
and  does  of  itself  savingly  enlighten  men,  or  through 
which  men  are  savingly  enlightened  independently  of 
the  mediation  and  sacrifice  of  the  Son  of  God. 

That  this  is  far  indeed  from  being  his  teaching- 
will  become  still  more  apparent  as  we  review  the  cog- 
nate doctrine,  —  "  The  Church  as  a  fountain  of  divine 
authority." 


GO  TRIAL  01  JjJi.  BRIGG& 


CHAPTER    VI. 

OMD   CHARGE:    THE   CHURCH   A    FOUNTAIN    OF    DIVINE 
AUTHORfl 

THE  second  charge  brought  againsl  Dr.  Briggs  by 
the  Prosecuting  Committee  is  that  he  teaches 
"that  the  Church  is  a  fountain  of  divine  authority, 

which,  apart  from  the  Holy  .Scripture,  may  and  docs 
savingly  enlighten  men/' 
All  that  has  been   said  of  the  Committee  hi 

apprehending  the  meaning  of  the  word 
"fountain"  in  connection  with  the  first  charge  applies 
also  to  this  second  charge.    J   -*  aeaning  they 

attach  to  the  words  '-'•  apart  from  the  I  iptnre  " 

is  not  quite  clear.     Do  they  mean,  without  the  actual 

of  the  Bible  as  a  book:  or  do  they  mean  that  Dr. 
Briggs  teaches  that  the  Christian  Church  ma, 
the    Holy    Scriptures    and    all    their    teachings,    and 

some  power  treasured  up  in  the  Church  its 
apart  even  from  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  still  e 
ingly  enlighten  men  ?     The  latter  appears  to  be  their 

ning.  But  this  is  a  doctrine  Dr.  Briggs  utterly 
repudiates.  It  is  one  of  the  mistaken  inferences 
which  the  Committee  have  drawn  from  their  miscon- 
ception of  the  meaning  of  his  words  and  the  scope 
of  his  argument. 


SECOND   CHARGE.  61 

It  is  not  strange  that  Dr.  Briggs  spoke  warmly 
against  having  such  a  doctrine  imputed  to  him. 
He  resented  this  imputation  and  dismissed  it  as 
unworthy  of  consideration.  "  I  admit,"  he  said,  "  the 
statements  that  *  the  reason  is  a  fountain  of  divine 
authority,'  and  '  the  Church  is  a  fountain  of  divine 
authority,'  but  I  deny  all  the  rest  of  the  doctrines 
attributed  to  me  in  the  form  and  in  the  language 
in  which  the  prosecution  state  them  in  these  two 
charges.  They  do  not  prove  and  they  cannot  prove 
from  the  inaugural  that  men  who  reject  the  Scrip- 
tures and  the  salvation  through  Jesus  Christ  are 
savingly  enlightened  by  the  Reason  or  by  the  Church. 
There  are  no  express  statements  to  this  effect  in 
the  inaugural.  There  are  no  statements  which  by 
logical  deduction  involve  such  conclusions.  You  can- 
not hold  me  responsible  for  any  inferences  made  from 
my  statements  by  the  prosecution,  or  by  yourselves, 
whether  such  inferences  appear  valid  to  you  or  not. 
There  are  certain  invalid  assumptions  which  the  pros- 
ecution are  forced  to  make  before  they  can  con- 
vince you,  even  by  indirection,  of  the  validity  of 
such  inferences.  I  shall  waste  no  time  in  an  at- 
tempt to  expound  the  doctrines  which  have  been 
invented  by  the  prosecution  and  wrongly  attributed 
to  me." 

But  Dr.  Briggs  still  found  it  necessary  to  meet  the 
contention  of  the  Committee  that  it  is  an  offence  to 
say  that  the  Church  is  a  fountain  of  divine  authority. 
In  doing  so  he  used  the  following  unmistakable  lan- 
guage :  — 


62  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

"  The  Church  has  no  divine  authority  in  itself  apart 
from  God.  Its  divine  authority  is  in  that  its  chief  i. 
tutions  were  divinely  appointed,  and  that  these  divinely 
appointed  institutions  are  the  ordinary  channels  of  divine 
grace.  The  church  is  a  fountain  of  divine  authority.  The 
divine  authority  flows  from  God  Himself  as  the  sole  original 
fountain  head  and  ultimate  source,  through  the  fountain  of 
the  Church,  and  distributes  its  healing,  life-giving  streams 
through  all  its  ministries. 

"The  Westminster  Confession  clearly  shows  thai 
visible  Church  is  the  kingdom  of  the  Lord  Jesiu 
that  He  'hath  given  the  ministry  oracles  and  ordinal 
of  God '  unto  it;  and  J  doth  by  His  own  presence  and  Spirit 
make  them  effectual.'  .  .  .  Whatever  this  court  may 
conclude,  I  declare  that  the  statement  of  the  Confession  is 
a  true  statement.  There  is  divine  authority  in  the  Church ; 
it  is  Christ's  kingdom.  He  reigns  over  it.  He  inhabits 
it  by  His  Spirit.  He  makes  its  institutions  efficacious. 
He  grants  access  to  Himself  through  His  Church.  Our 
Presbyterian  fathers  rejoiced  in  such  access.  Their  de- 
scendants enjoy  this  unspeakable  privilege.  Are  we  to  be 
robbed  of  our  birthright  ?  Are  you  ready  to  banish  from 
the  official  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  the  wit- 
nessing Spirit,  the  indwelling  Christ,  and  the  living  God 
in  order  to  incase  the  Holy  Trinity  within  the  covers  of  a 
book  ?  Shall  we  destroy  the  Church  in  order  to  exalt  the 
Bible  ?  " 

In  the  same  connection  Dr.  Briggs  showed  that  the 
Scriptural  and  Confessional  doctrine  regarding  the 
sacraments  proves  the  Church  to  be  a  great  channel 
of  divine  authority. 

But  the  Prosecuting  Committee  appeared  to  reject 


SECOND   CHARGE.  63 

all  these  statements  and  to  deny  the  validity  of  all 
this  reasoning.  Yet  they  did  not  attempt  to  reply  to 
the  statements  or  refute  the  reasoning.  They  simply 
dismissed  the  matter  with  this  assertion  :  "  The  labored 
argument  made  by  Dr.  Briggs  in  his  defence  to  show 
that  according  to  the  teaching  of  both  the  Bible  and 
the  standards,  the  Church  and  the  Reason  are  great 
fountains  of  divine  authority,  is  wide  of  the  mark  and 
wholly  unsuccessful."  Why  it  should  be  thought  wide 
of  the  mark  it  is  difficult  to  see,  when  the  question  at 
issue  was,  Is  the  Church,  as  an  institution,  a  fountain, 
channel,  or  medium  through  which  God  speaks  with 
authority  to  man  ?  If  his  argument  be  thought  un- 
successful and  inconclusive,  it  can  easily  be  supple- 
mented with  undeniable  proof  from  all  parts  of  sacred 
Scripture,  not  to  speak  of  the  seven  chapters  on  the 
Church  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  to  which  the  prose- 
cution have  made  no  reference  ! 

Can  we  hear  God  saying  to  Abraham,  as  He  founds 
the  Jewish  Church  in  him  and  his  family,  "  In  blessing 
I  will  bless  thee  and  in  multiplying  I  will  multiply  thy 
seed  as  the  stars  of  the  heaven  and  as  the  sand  which 
is  upon  the  seashore  :  And  thy  seed  shall  possess  the 
gate  of  his  enemies  :  And  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  na- 
tions of  the  earth  be  blessed,"  and  say  that  the  Church 
is  not  a  fountain  of  divine  authority  ?  Can  we  recall 
the  fact  that  it  was  through  the  Church  thus  founded 
and  consecrated  that  Christ  came  and  the  whole 
written  Word  of  God  was  given  to  mankind,  and  not 
believe  that  the  Church  is  a  channel  of  divine  authority, 
the  very  medium  through  which  God  Himself  came 


64  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

down  to  man  ?  Can  we  hear  Paul  speaking  of  the 
Church  as  the  hody  of  Christ,  "  the  fulness  of  Him 
that  filleth  all  in  all  ?  "  or  can  we  hear  John  speaking 
of  the  Church  as  the  bride  of  Christ,  joining  with  the 
Spirit  in  crying  u  Come,"  and  refuse  to  believe  that 
the  Church  is  a  fountain  of  divine  authority  ?  And 
what  shall  we  say  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  Himself  as 
He  says  to  the  first  members  of  the  Christian  Church  : 
"  Ye  are  the  light  of  the  world ; "  "  Ye  are  my  wit- 
nesses ;  "  "  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and  of  the 
Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  teaching  them  to  observe 
all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you ;  and 
lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world.  Amen."  Can  any  believer  in  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  read  these  words  and  deny  that  the  Church  is  a 
fountain  of  divine  authority  ? 

The  unsoundness  of  the  position  taken  by  the  prose- 
cution is  made  still  more  apparent  by  the  violence  they 
do  to  Scripture  in  their  attempt  to  maintain  their 
position.  Think,  for  example,  of  the  incorrectness  of 
such  statements  as  the  following  made  by  Dr.  Lampe 
on  behalf  of  the  Committee :  "  Christ  and  the  New 
Testament  writers  invariably  appeal  to  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures as  the  ultimate  authority  for  the  settlement  of 
all  religious  and  moral  questions  ;  "  "  With  Christ  and 
the  Apostles  the  Bible  alone  held  the  place  of  absolute 
and  final  authority.  They  never  appeal  to  either 
Church  or  Reason,  but  brought  both  Church  and 
Reason  to  the  bar  of  Scripture  for  judgment  and 
light." 


SECOND   CHARGE.  65 

How  utterly  at  variance  these  statements  are  with 
the  plain  facts  of  Scripture  !  Have  the  prosecution 
forgotten  our  Saviour's  words  in  the  18th  chapter  of 
Matthew,  "  Tell  it  unto  the  Church  "  ?  Does  our  Lord, 
in  giving  directions  as  to  the  settlement  of  a  moral 
question  in  that  passage,  make  no  appeal  to  the  Church  ? 
Does  He  appeal  to  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  as 
"  the  ultimate  authority  for  the  settlement "  of  that 
moral  question  ?  No,  He  does  not  enjoin  the  offended 
brother  to  settle  the  question  by  reading  the  law,  the 
prophets,  or  the  psalms  to  his  offending  brother ;  but 
He  bids  him  tell  it  to  the  Church,  and  He  makes  the 
Church's  authority  final :  u  If  he  neglect  to  hear  the 
Church,  let  him  be  unto  thee  as  an  heathen  man  and  a 
publican."  Then,  as  if  to  impress  upon  his  followers 
the  great  solemnity  and  real  divinity  of  the  Church's 
authority,  Jesus  adds  these  words  :  "  Verily  I  say  unto 
you,  whatsoever  ye  shall  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound 
in  heaven ;  and  whatsoever  ye  shall  loose  on  earth 
shall  be  loosed  in  heaven."  The  Westminster  divines 
based  section  ii.  of  chapter  xxx.  of  the  Confession 
of  Faith  upon  this  solemn  utterance. 

Or  could  anything  be  a  more  direct  contradiction 
of  these  remarkable  assertions  made  by  the  prosecu- 
tion regarding  Christ  and  His  Apostles  than  the  fol- 
lowing from  the  5th  chapter  of  First  Corinthians  : 
"  For  I,  verily,  being  absent  in  body  but  present  in 
Spirit,  have  already,  as  though  I  were  present,  judged 
him  that  hath  so  wrought  this  thing,  in  the  name  of 
our  Lord  Jesus,  ye  being  gathered  together  and  my 
spirit,  with  the  poiver  of  our  Lord  Jesus,  to  deliver 

5 


66  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

such  a  one  unto  Satan  for  the  destruction  of  the  flesh, 
that  the  spirit  may  be  saved  in  the  day  of  the  Lord 
Jesus." 

Among  the  last  words  Jesus  spake  to  His  disciples, 
if  not  the  very  last  before  His  ascension,  were  these  : 
"  But  ye  shall  receive  power  when  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
come  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  my  witnesses,  both 
in  Jerusalem  and  in  all  Judea  and  Samaria,  and  unto 
the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth. " 

Members  of  the  prosecution  themselves  have  no 
doubt  often,  in  the  discharge  of  solemn  ecclesiastical 
functions,  prefaced  their  official  acts  with  such  words 
as  these  :  "  In  the  name  and  by  the  authority  of  Jesus 
Christ,  the  King  and  Head  of  the  Church." 

The  doctrine  taught  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Briggs,  and 
charged  against  him  as  heretical,  is  so  manifestly  both 
Scriptural  and  Confessional  that  proving  it  seems  a 
work  of  supererogation.  Yet  it  is  a  fundamental  and 
very  sacred  doctrine,  and  when  it  is  denied  there  is  need 
for  lifting  it  into  prominence,  lest  some  should  grieve 
away  the  Spirit  of  God  by  lightly  esteeming  the  Zion 
which  the  Lord  hath  founded,  the  Jerusalem  which  He 
has  graven  upon  the  palms  of  His  hands,  and  whose 
walls  are  continually  before  Him,  the  Heaven-created 
fountain  through  which  the  benefits  of  Christ's  re- 
demptive work  are  to  be  communicated  to  the  whole 
world,  the  God-ordained  institution  without  whose 
agency  the  inspired  Word  itself  might  lie  unheeded, 
and  fail  to  accomplish  the  thing  whereto  God  sent  it. 

The  prosecution  further  claimed  that  Dr.  Briggs 
was  guilty  of  an  offence  in  saying  that  the  majority  of 


SECOND  CHARGE.  67 

Christians  from  the  Apostolic  age  have  found  God 
through  the  Church.  His  language,  as  quoted  by  them 
in  this  connection,  is :  "  Martyrs  and  saints,  fathers 
and  school-men,  the  profoundest  intellects,  the  saint- 
liest  lives,  have  had  this  experience ;  institutional 
Christianity  has  been  to  them  the  presence-chamber 
of  God." 

This  is  a  simple  statement  of  fact.  It  is  true  that 
the  majority  of  Christians  from  the  Apostolic  age 
have  found  God  through  the  Church  and  not  directly 
through  the  written  Word.  This  is  true  of  the  majority 
of  those  who  find  God  savingly  to-day.  The  Bible  is 
not  given  a  chance  to  be  the  direct  means  of  savingly 
enlightening  men.  It  is  but  little  read  by  the  great 
majority  of  the  people  of  any  country.  It  is  read  and 
taught  more  perhaps  in  our  day  than  in  any  previous 
age.  Portions  of  it  are  statedly  read  and  discoursed 
upon  in  the  church  and  Sabbath-school,  and  occasion- 
ally in  the  home.  There  are  a  few  pious  hearts  in 
every  Christian  community  who  peruse  the  Bible  with 
silent  delight  day  by  day  for  the  comfort  it  brings 
them.  There  are  others  who  search  the  Scriptures 
more  critically,  and  make  the  interpreting  and  ex- 
pounding of  them  the  chief  work  of  their  lives.  But, 
after  all,  how  many  of  the  representatives  of  our 
religion  have  read  the  Bible  once  from  beginning  to 
end  ?  The  treatment  they  give  the  Bible  is  altogether 
peculiar.  They  speak  of  the  book  in  the  most  com- 
plimentary and  reverential  terms.  They  call  it  the 
Bible!  — the  Book  of  Books!— the  Word  of  God! 
They  fear  it,  and  fight  for  the  idea  of  its  sacred- 


68  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

ness.  They  do  everything,  in  short,  which  the  most 
zealous  devotees  should  be  expected  to  do ;  but  the 
one  thing  which,  as  intelligent  men,  they  should  be 
expected  to  do,  they  do  not ;  namely,  read  the  book. 
That  they  occasionally  read  parts  of  it  cannot  be 
denied.  That  they  imagine  they  have  in  some  way 
acquired  a  correct  knowledge  of  what  it  teaches  is 
equally  unquestionable.  That  they  actually  have  such 
a  knowledge  is  another  matter.  What  a  large  propor- 
tion of  nominally  Christian  people  know  about  the 
Bible  has  been  learned  at  second  hand  and  not  from 
independent  study.  Their  religious  knowledge  is,  to 
all  intents  and  purposes,  traditionary.  It  has  come 
down  to  them  mainly  through  oral  instruction,  and 
through  the  writings  of  those  who  are  supposed  to 
have  studied  the  Bible  so  thoroughly  as  to  be  able 
to  give  the  substance  of  it  in  their  own  words.  Men 
who  would  be  shocked  at  the  thought  of  living  from 
year  to  year  without  a  Bible  in  their  homes  will  live 
contentedly  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  their 
whole  lifetime,  without  ever  reading  the  Bible  once 
throughout.  The  Book  is  sacred  in  their  eyes  only 
in  an  outward  and  material  sense,  and  is  of  value  to 
them  as  a  fetich  is  of  value  to  a  heathen.  It  is  ex- 
pected to  banish  sin  as  a  piece  of  cedar  wood  will 
banish  moths.  It  is  relied  on  for  salvation  as  the 
Ark  of  the  Covenant  of  the  Lord  was  relied  upon  in 
the  disastrous  fight  with  the  Philistines. 

With  the  Bible  thus  neglected  and  misused,  how  do 
the  majority  of  Christians  find  God  but  through  the 
Church  ?      This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Westminster 


SECOND  CHARGE.  69 

standards :  "  The  Spirit  of  God  maketh  the  reading, 
but  especially  the  preaching  of  the  Word,  an  effectual 
means  of  convincing  and  converting  sinners,  and  of 
building  them  up  in  holiness  and  comfort  through 
faith  unto  salvation."  (Shorter  Catechism,  Q.  89.) 
Preaching  is  not  using  the  Scriptures  directly.  It  is 
one  of  the  distinctive  functions  of  the  Church.  There 
may  not  be  one  sentence  from  the  Bible  in  the  whole 
discourse.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Scripture  statements 
do  not  form  more  than  the  hundredth  part  of  the 
average  gospel  sermon. 

But  the  Westminster  standards  teach  that  there  are 
other  "  effectual  means  of  salvation "  besides  the 
Word,  one  of  which  is  the  sacraments.  Their  answer 
to  the  question  "  How  do  the  sacraments  become 
effectual  means  of  salvation?"  is,  "  The  sacraments 
become  effectual  means  of  salvation,  not  from  any  vir- 
tue in  them,  or  in  him  that  doth  administer  them ; 
but  only  by  the  blessing  of  Christ,  and  the  working 
of  His  Spirit  in  them  that  by  faith  receive  them" 
(Shorter  Catechism,  Q.  91),  or,  to  quote  the  answer  as 
it  is  given  in  the  Larger  Catechism,  Q.  161,  "  The 
sacraments  become  effectual  means  of  salvation,  not 
by  any  power  in  themselves,  or  any  virtue  derived 
from  the  piety  or  intention  of  him  by  whom  they  are 
administered,  but  only  by  the  working  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  the  blessing  of  Christ,  by  whom  they  are 
instituted."  Yet  the  Prosecuting  Committee  deny 
that  the  Church  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority, 
and  that  the  sacraments  of  the  Church,  and  insti- 
tutional   Christianity    as    a    whole,    have    been    to 


70  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

the  majority  of  Christians    the  presence-chamber  of 
God! 

If  further  testimony  were  needed  against  the  heresy 
of  this  denial,  it  would  be  easy  to  furnish  it.  We 
cannot  tell  all  the  ways  in  which  the  sacraments 
Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  bring  Christians  near 
to  God,  but  there  are  sonic  outward  ways  with  which 
every  one  who  has  had  the  care  of  souls  is  familiar. 
Eere  is  a  pastor's  testimony  :  — 

"  Among  (lie  many  whom  I  have  seen  come  out  of  dark- 
ness into  Light,  Ili»'  majority  were  led,  not  by  means  of  the 
direct  reading  of  the  Word,  but  by  means  of  the  sacraments, 
and  especially  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  It 
was  in  connection  with  its  observance  that  they  were  first 
led  to  think  seriously  regarding  their  relation  to  God.  It 
was  by  committing  themselves  to  a  godly  life  in  presence 
of  others,  by  sitting  at  the  Lord's  table,  that  they  were 
most  powerfully  helped  to  live  consistent  lives.  A  single 
example  may  serve  to  illustrate  both  these  statements. 

On  a  Monday  evening,  following  a  Communion  Sabbath, 
there  called  on  me  a  much  respected  merchant  of  the  city 
in  which  I  was  then  a  pastor.  He  spoke  with  his  usual 
calmness  of  manner,  but  was  in  great  disquietude  of 
spirit.  'I  have  been  greatly  troubled,'  said  he,  'ever 
since  I  was  at  church  yesterday  morning.  I  sat  in  the 
same  pew  with  my  wife,  but  the  bread  and  the  cup  were 
passed  by  me  to  her,  as  1  am  not  a  communicant.  I  said 
to  myself  then,  and  I  have  been  saying  it  ever  since, 
What  does  this  mean?  And  how  long  is  it  to  last? 
Bui  I  am  not  lit  to  be  a  communicant.'  I  spoke  to  him 
of  the  love  of  Jesus  and  of  His  willingness  to  receive  him, 
and  make   the  act  of  confessing  Him  before  men  a  means 


SECOND  CHARGE.  71 

of  grace  to  him ;  and  by  God's  blessing  that  dear  member 
of  my  flock,  with  whom  God's  Spirit  was  thus  striving, 
came  out  into  the  light.  Two  months  later  as  I  received 
him  to  the  Communion  of  the  church  and  saw  him  sitting 
with  his  beloved  wife  at  the  table  of  the  Lord,  I  said 
within  myself,  Here  is  another  example  of  that  meaning 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  which  Jesus  evidently  had  in  mind 
as  He  prayed  at  the  time  He  instituted  it,  - —  '  that  they 
all  may  be  one,  as  thou,  Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee, 
that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us :  that  the  world  may 
believe  that  thou  hast  sent  me.'  When  last  heard  from 
that  Christian  brother,  who  was  thus  brought  out  of 
darkness  into  light  by  means  of  the  sacrament  of  the 
Supper,  was  rejoicing  in  the  light  and  witnessing  a  good 
confession." 

How  many  thousands  have  been  brought  to  Christ 
through  simply  witnessing  the  observance  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  and  to  how  many  thousands  of  thou- 
sands both  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  have  been 
•'  effectual  means  of  salvation,"  in  those  hidden  ways 
perhaps  more  directly  referred  to  in  the  Westminster 
Confession  and  Catechisms,  eternity  alone  can  reveal. 
But  enough  has  been  said  in  proof  and  illustration  of 
this  precious  doctrine,  for  adhering  to  which  Dr. 
Briggs  was  condemned ! 

The  prosecution  quote  as  part  of  his  offence  in  this 
connection  these  words  of  Dr.  Briggs  regarding  the 
above  doctrine :  "  It  is  difficult  for  many  Protestants 
to  regard  this  experience  as  any  other  than  pious 
illusion  and  delusion."  I  should  hardly  have  thought 
this  statement  correct,  had  not  the  Prosecuting  Com- 


72  TRIAL  OS  DR.  BRKH 

mittee,  if  not  the  majority  of  the  Assembly  Furnished 
an  actual  illustration  of  its  truth.  But  I  cannot  doubt 
that,  on  carefully  examining  this  doctrine,  they  will 
gladly  reverse  their  judgment. 

Another  proof  of  Dr.  Briggs'  alleged  heresy  relied 
on  by  the  prosecution  is  that  lie  has  said  that t;  New- 
man could  not  reach  certainty  through  the  Bible, 
striving  never  so  hard,"  but  that  he  found  God 
through  the  Church.  All  that  need  be  said  regard- 
ing this  is,  first,  that  it  was  a  statement  by  Dr. 
Briggs  of  what  Newman  himself  claimed  to  be  the 
fact  in  IjIs  case;  and,  second,  that  there  is  some  re- 
semblance in  this  alleged  fact  between  Newman's  case 
and  that  of  his  great  evangelical  ootomporary  Charles 
11.  Spurgeon.  Spurgeon's  experience,  as  often  referred 
to  by  himself,  was  that  before  his  conversion  he  waited 
on  ordinances,  re-ad  his  Bible,  and  reasoned  about  the 
things  of  God,  but  could  find  no  peaee  ;  and  that  it 
was  on  going  into  a  church  ami  hearing  a  sermon 
preached  from  the  old  familiar  words,  "  Look  unto 
me,  and  be  ye  saved,  all  the  ends  of  the  earth;  for  I 
am  Grod  and  there  is  none  else,"  that  he  found  peace. 
One  would  almost  think  that  in  arranging  and  con- 
trolling the  circumstances  connected  with  the  conver- 
sion of  His  honored  servant,  Spurgeon,  the  Lord  had 
before  Him  the  present  unhappy  controversy  in  one 
of  the  great  branches  of  His  Church,  and  that  He 
so  ordered  the  manner  of  Spurgeon's  eon  version  as 
to  show  to  all  His  people  how  jealous  He  is  of  the 
honor  of  His  Church,  as  well  as  of  His  Word  and 
the  moral   nature  with  which  Lie   has  endowed  Ilis 


SECOND  CHARGE.  73 

intelligent  creature,  —  man.  Spurgeon  did  not  reach 
certainty  through  his  use  of  the  Word  alone.  God 
saw  that  both  the  Church  and  the  Reason  were  also 
honored  before  He  allowed  His  servant's  feet  to  be 
set  upon  the  Rock. 

It  was  not  in  precisely  the  same  way  indeed  that 
Newman  found  peace,  for  u  there  are  diversities  of 
operations ; "  yet  it  was  through  the  Church,  in  some 
sense,  that  he  believed  he  finally  reached  certainty. 

This  brings  us  to  what  may  be  termed  the  head  and 
front  of  Dr.  Briggs'  offending  in  the  opinion  of  his 
opponents,  and  of  not  a  few  of  his  friends.  Let  it  be 
stated  in  the  language  of  the  prosecution  :  — 

"  Again  he  says :  ( Spurgeon  is  an  example  of  the  aver- 
age modern  evangelical,  who  holds  the  Protestant  position, 
and  assails  the  Church  and  Reason  in  the  interest  of  the 
authority  of  Scripture.  But  the  average  opinion  of  the 
Christian  world  would  not  assign  him  a  higher  place  in 
the  kingdom  of  God  than  Martineau  or  Newman.  May 
we  not  conclude  on  the  whole  that  these  three  representa- 
tive Christians  of  our  time,  living  in  or  near  the  world's 
metropolis,  have,  each  in  his  way,  found  God  and  rested 
on  Divine  authority  ?  .  .  .  Men  are  influenced  by  their 
temperaments  and  environments  which  of  the  three  ways 
of  access  to  God  they  may  pursue.'  " 

In  dealing  with  these  statements  of  Dr.  Briggs, 
which  are  unfortunately  taken  out  of  their  setting 
in  the  inaugural,  and  away  from  their  context,  the 
prosecution  inadvertently  make  mistake  after  mistake. 
They  first  say :  "  Here  Dr.  Briggs  not  only  teaches  that 
men  may  and  do  find  God  savingly  through  any  one  of 


74  TRIAL  OB  DR  BBIGGS. 

the  three  fountains  of  divine  authority."  Dr.  B 
might  have  boon  correct  had  he  said  this,  hut  it  ifl  not 
what  lie  did  say.  What  he  said  was  that  i;  men  are 
influenced  by  their  temperaments  and  environments 
which  of  the  three  ways  of  access  to  God  they  may 
pursue."  A  glance  at  the  argument  in  the  inaugural 
in  which  the  sentence  occurs  shows  that  he  does  not 
teach  that  a  man  must  find  God  B  only  through 

the  way  of  searching  for  certainty  which  lie  ma 
pursues ;  and,  in  any  ca* 

supposes  the  atonement  made  by  Christ,  and  the  work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  underlying  each  of  the  three 
media  of  authority,  as  that  which  makes  it  possible 
for  a  man  to  find  access  to  God  through  any  or  all 
of  these  channels. 

This  is  the  first  mistake  made  by  the  prosecution 
in  dealing  with  these  quotations  from  the  inaugural ; 
and  here  is  the  second:  u but  admits  that  the  Bible, 
as  the  only  way  for  obtaining  d  and  certainty, 

as  held  by  .    m,  is  the   Protestant  doctrine." 

There  are  two   errors  here:    first,   Dr.    I 
not  admit  that  Spurgeon  held  that  the  Bible  is  the 
only   way    of   obtaining    salvation    and    certainty, — 
Christ  is    the    only   way;    and    second,   he    does   not 
admit   that  holding  that  the   Bible   is   the  only   way 
of  salvation  is  the   Protestant  doctrine.       He   t 
Spurgeon    as    an    example    of  the    average    modern 
evangelical,  who  holds  the  Protestant  doctrine;  but 
he  claims  that  the  evangelical  Protestant  dor 
that,  while  the  Bible  is  ';  the  only  infallible  rul 
faith  and  practice,"  the   Spirit  of  God,  in  savingly 


SECOND   CHARGE.  75 

enlightening  men,  and  applying  the  redemption  pur- 
chased by  Christ,  can  and  does  work  also  through 
the  Church  and  the  Reason.  This  makes  the  next 
error  into  which  the  prosecution  fall,  in  their  argu- 
ment in  this  connection,  apparent.  It  is  contained 
in  their  words  :  "  And  therefore,  since  the  Presby- 
terian Church  is  a  Protestant  Church,  he  convicts 
himself  of  teaching  doctrines  which  are  not  Presbyte- 
rian." The  prosecution  here  attribute  to  Dr.  Briggs 
premises  which  he  does  not  hold,  and  which  are, 
therefore,  logically  false ;  and  their  conclusion  is 
accordingly  false. 

But  what  did  Dr.  Briggs  mean  by  speaking  of 
Spurgeon,  Martineau,  and  Newman  as  three  repre- 
sentative Christians  ?  It  was  thought  by  some  in 
the  Assembly  that  he  had  placed  the  three  on  the 
same  evangelical  equality,  and  had  held  up  Martineau 
and  Newman  as  being  as  worthy  of  imitation  in  all 
respects  as  Spurgeon.  In  supposing  this  they  for- 
got the  sense  in  which  Dr.  Briggs  used  the  word 
"representative," — not  as  representative  of  all  that 
Christians  ought  to  be,  but  as  representative  of  the 
three  great  classes  under  consideration,  —  Spurgeon 
representing  those  who  give  the  highest  place  theo- 
retically to  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  ;  Martineau 
representing  those  who  give  the  highest  place  theo- 
retically to  the  Reason ;  and  Newman  representing 
those  who  give  the  highest  place  theoretically  to  the 
Church. 

Some  were  still  further  offended  by  the  statement 
that  the  average  opinion  of  the  Christian  world  would 


76  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

not  assign  Spurgeon  a  higher  place  in  the  Kingdom 
of  God  than  Martineau  or  Newman.  But  Dr.  Briggs 
was  speaking,  not  of  Presbvterianism,  or  even  Protes- 
tantism, but  of  historical  Christianity,  as  will  be 
remembered  by  recalling  the  statement,  "  There  are 
historically  three  great  fountains  of  Divine  Authority." 
It  is  without  question  a  simple  fact,  as  Dr.  Briggs 
showed  in  his  defence,  that  the  Christian  world,  in  the 
sense  in  which  the  term  was  used  in  the  inaugural, 
would  not  assign  Spurgeon  a  higher  place  in  the  King- 
dom of  God  than  Martineau  or  Newman,  whether  they 
are  right  or  wrong  in  their  estimate  of  the  religious 
or  ecclesiastical  greatness  of  these  three  eminent 
men.  To  quote  from  Dr.  Briggs'  own  language  before 
the  court :  — 

u  It  may  seem  strange  to  some  of  you  that  the  average 
opinion  of  the  Christian  world  would  not  assign  him 
(Spurgeon)  a  higher  place  in  the  Kingdom  of  God  than 
Martineau  or  Newman.  But  a  little  reflection  ought  to 
convince  you  that  it  is  so.  Spurgeon  is  the  hero  of  the 
Evangelical  party  in  the  Church.  He  was  generally 
esteemed  to  be  the  greatest  preacher  of  the  gospel  in  our 
generation.  His  sermons  have  been  of  incalculable  benefit 
to  multitudes.  I  yield  to  none  in  admiration  of  Spurgeon 
as  a  master  of  sacred  eloquence.  It  was  my  privilege  to 
enjoy  many  times  listening  to  his  eloquence,  and  to  know 
a  great  deal  of  the  work  lie  was  doing.  But  any  one  who 
understands  the  state  of  religious  opinion  in  England 
knows  that  Spurgeon  only  represented  a  party  among  the 
nonconformists,  and  that  a  considerable  portion  of  them 
would  not  assign  him  a  higher  place  than  Martineau  or 
Newman.     He  lived  to  find  himself  in  a  hopeless  minority 


SECOND  CHARGE.  77 

in  his  own  denomination,  and  to  separate  from  the  mass 
of  nonconformists,  whom  he  accused  of  being  on  'the 
down-grade.'  ...  In  the  average  opinion  of  the  Church 
of  England,  Spurgeon  would  certainly  assume  the  lowest 
place  of  the  three.  Among  Roman  Catholics,  Newman 
would  have  the  pre-eminence.  Among  German  Protes- 
tants, Marti  neau  would  hold  the  highest  rank.  In  North 
America,  without  doubt  Spurgeon  is  in  greatest  estima- 
tion. .  .  .  But  suppose  I  make  a  mistake  in  statistics, 
and  my  opinion  is  wide  of  the  facts,  —  is  such  a  mistake 
heresy?" 

Any  one  who  perceives  the  scope  of  the  inau- 
gural will  have  no  difficulty  in  understanding  the 
reference  made  to  Spurgeon,  Martineau,  and  Newman. 
Dr.  Briggs  was  not  writing  simply  for  Presbyterians. 
He  had  not  even  Evangelical  Protestantism  alone  in 
view.  He  was  taking  into  view  the  whole  nominally 
Christian  world,  with  all  its  varying  churches,  sects, 
and  parties.  It  was  not  his  purpose  to  exalt  any  sect 
or  individual  at  the  expense  of  another.  Nor  was  he 
aiming  at  making  either  his  own  or  any  other  denom- 
ination more  narrowly  exclusive,  and  more  intensely 
loyal  to  its  own  historic  position.  He  was  think- 
ing of  possible  union  rather  than  division,  of  peace 
rather  than  hostility  between  those  of  every  name 
who  are  seeking  in  various  ways  to  be  the  children  of 
the  same  heavenly  Father.  He  was  striving  to  find 
out  what  truths  were  common  to  all  the  three  great 
classes  into  which  the  Christian  world  is  divided. 
His  aim  beino-  to  bring  all  to  rightly  acknowledge 
the  authority  of  Scripture,  he  made  "the  Authority 


78  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

of  Scripture"  bis  theme.  As  a  proper  and  necessary 
introduction  to  this  theme,  he  examined  "  the  Church 
and  the  Reason  as  scats  of  Divine  authority,"  "  be- 
cause," as  lie  says  in  the  inaugural,  "they  open  our 
eves  to  see  mistakes  that  are  common  to  the  three 
departments."  The  Christian  scholar  who  is  willing 
to  give  false  systems  credit  for  any  good  that  may  be 
in  them,  and  at  the  same  time  to  honestly  admit  any- 
thing false  that  may  be  in  the  better  system  which  he 
has  the  happiness  to  call  his,  and  who,  without  relin- 
quishing any  essential  truth,  is  searching  for  a  basis 
of  religious  faith  and  life  broad  enough  for  the  whole 
Christian  world  to  unite  upon,  is  surely,  in  this  age  of 
vast  endeavors  and  grand  achievements,  engaged  in  a 
task  which  deserves  the  encouragement  of  all  lovers 
of  God  and  man. 

The  last  effort  to  convict  Dr.  Briggs  of  heresy  by 
means  of  this  second  charge  is  contained  in  the  state- 
ment of  the  prosecution  that  according  to  the  views 
of  Dr.  Briggs  we  must  recognize  the  Church  of  Rome 
as  a  great  fountain  of  Divine  authority,  able  to  give 
men,  without  or  above  the  Bible,  a  saving  knowledge 
of  God,  and  divine  assurance. 

1  have  never  regarded  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
as  occupying  the  same  plane  with  evangelical  churches; 
I  believe  it  to  be  full  of  errors,  and  wholly  mistaken 
in  many  of  its  aims  and  claims.  Yet  I  am  bound 
to  acknowledge  that  all  this  does  not  exclude  it 
from  being  part  of  the  visible  Church.  I  believe 
the  doctrine  taught  in  section  iv.,  chapter  xxv.  of 
the  Confession:    "This   Catholic  Church   hath  been 


SECOND  CHARGE.  79 

sometimes  more,  sometimes  less  visible.  And  partic- 
ular churches  which  are  members  thereof  are  more 
or  less  pure,  according  as  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel 
is  taught  and  embraced,  ordinances  administered, 
and  public  worship  performed  more  or  less  purely 
in  them."  Section  v.  says  :  "  The  purest  churches 
under  heaven  are  subject  both  to  mixture  and  error; 
and  some  have  so  degenerated  as  to  become  no 
churches,  but  synagogues  of  Satan."  But  no  one  is 
warranted  in  applying  this  last  clause  to  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church.  Section  vi.,  chapter  xxv.,  repre- 
sents the  Pope  of  Rome  as  Antichrist ;  but  even  if  the 
Westminster  divines  were  right  in  this,  —  which  many 
intelligent  Presbyterians  question,  —  that  itself  would 
not  blot  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  out  from  being 
part  of  the  visible  Church. 

Those  who  would  see  the  proof  of  this  statement 
have  only  to  look  unto  Jesus.  If  ever  a  church  had 
become  corrupt,  it  was  the  Jewish  Church  at  the 
time  of  our  Lord's  advent.  Its  leaders  were  hypo- 
crites, a  generation  of  vipers,  deceivers,  making  the 
Word  of  God  of  none  effect  through  their  tradition, 
shutting  up  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  neither  entering 
it  themselves  nor  suffering  those  to  enter  who  gladly 
would.  They  were  a  thousand  times  more  positively 
Antichrist  than  the  leaders  in  any  church  of  to-day. 
That  church  which  had  once  been  a  "  well-watered 
garden  "  had  become  "  a  dry  ground."  Yet  it  was  out 
of  that  "  dry  ground  "  that  there  sprang  the  Plant  of 
Renown.  And  Jesus  honored  that  degenerate  church. 
He  observed  its  rites  ;  He  kept  its  laws  ;  He  wor- 
shipped in  its  synagogues. 


80  TRIAL   OF  DR.  BRIG 

We  know  that  there  are  devout  followers  of  Christ 
in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  of  to-day.     We  have 
seen  them  in  our  homes  ;  we  have  known  them  i 
where.     They  may  have  no  Bibles,  and  may  no* 
allowed  to  read  the  Bible  we  would  place  in  their 
hands.     They  may  never  have  attended  any  church 
but  their  own;  yet,  full  of  error  though  it  be.  there  is 
manifestly  truth  enough  and  Divine  authority  enough 
in  connection  with  that  church  for  the  Spirit  of  I 
to  make  use  of  as  a  means  of  savir. 
earnest  souls,  whom  you  may  know  by  their  fruits  to 
be  true  branches  of  the  Living  Vine. 

The  day  has  gone  by  when  any  minister  or  member 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  can  be  justly  condemned 
as  a  heretic  for  holding  the  doctrine  that  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  is  a  part  of  the  Church  Visible. 

In  our  review  of  the  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the 
Reason  as  three  great  fountains  of  Divine  authority, 
have  found  that,  when  properly  understood,  Dr.  BrL 
statement  is  eminently  in  accord  with  both  .Scripture 
and  the  Westminster  standards. 

These  three  fountains  of  Divine  authority,  or  means 
by  which  man,  through  Christ  and  under  the  guidance 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  led  back  to  God,  may  be  found 
summed  up  in  a  single  sentence  of  *  *  minster 

Assembly's  Shorter  Catechism,  in  the  v.-  The 

outward  and  ordinary  means  whereby  Christ  com- 
municateth  to  us  the  benefits  of  redemption  are 
his  ordinances,  especially  the  and 

prayer,   all   which   are   made   effectual   to   the  el 


SECOND  CHARGE.  81 

for  salvation. "  If  for  "  the  Word,  sacraments,  and 
prayer "  we  substitute  "  the  Bible,  the  Church,  and 
the  Reason,"  to  which  these  three  means  of  grace 
well  correspond,  we  see,  as  we  have  seen  in  other 
ways,  that  this  doctrine  for  which  Dr.  Briggs  has 
been  condemned  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Westminster 
standards. 

The  same  three  fountains  of  Divine  authority  are 
also  summed  up  in  one  brief  passage  of  the  Word  of 
God  (Rom.  x.  13-21) :  "  Whosoever  shall  call  upon  the 
name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved."  This  is  the  reason 
exercised  in  prayer.  "  How  then  shall  they  call  on 
Him  in  whom  they  have  not  believed  ?  And  how 
shall  they  believe  in  Him  whom  they  have  not  heard  ?" 
This  does  not  exclude  the  possibility  of  hearing 
God  speaking  through  His  works,  and  particularly 
through  the  conscience,  reason,  and  whole  moral 
nature  of  man  ;  but  how,  under  ordinary  circum- 
stances, and  in  the  ordinary  exercise  of  Divine  grace, 
can  they  be  expected  to  hear  even  through  these 
channels  without  a  preacher  ?  "  And  how  shall  they 
preach  except  they  be  sent  ? "  This  preaching  and 
sending  of  the  preacher  is  the  work  of  the  Church, 
But  with  the  work  of  the  Church  the  Word  comes  in ; 
for  both  the  Church's  life  and  preaching  are  based 
upon  the  Word.  "Even  as  it  is  written,  'How  beauti- 
ful are  the  feet  of  them  that  bring  glad  tidings  of 
good  things!'  But  they  did  not  all  hearken  to  the 
glad  tidings.  For  Isaiah  saith,  <  Lord,  who  hath 
believed  our  report?'  So  belief  cometh  of  hearing, 
and  hearing  by  the  Word  of  Christ.     But  I  say,  did 

6 


82  TRIAL  OF   DR.  BRIGGS. 

they  not  hear  ?  Yes,  verily.  '  Their  sound  went  out 
into  all  the  earth,  and  their  words  unto  the  ends  of 
the  world,' "  —  a  quotation  from  the  fourth  verse  of 
the  nineteenth  Psalm  with  reference  to  God's  works, 
confirming  the  doctrine  that  men  should  hear  God 
speaking  in  His  works,  and  exercise  faith  upon  such 
hearing. 

"But  I  say  did  Israel  not  know?"  Israel  had 
better  knowledge  than  could  be  derived  from  nature 
and  reason  alone,  yet  did  not  make  as  good  use  of 
it  as  some  among  the  heathen  made  of  the  less 
clear  light  they  possessed.  "First,  Moses  saith:  'I 
will  provoke  you  to  jealousy  with  that  which  is  no 
nation,  with  a  nation  void  of  understanding  will  I 
anger  you.' 

"  And  Isaiah  is  very  bold  and  saith  :  '  I  was  found 
of  them  that  sought  me  not ;  I  became  manifest  unto 
them  that  asked  not  of  me.'  But  as  to  Israel  he  saith : 
'  All  the  day  long  did  I  spread  out  my  hands  unto 
a  disobedient  and  gainsaying  people.' "  How  very 
clearly  taught  throughout  this  whole  passage  is  the 
truth  that  some  men,  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  may  find  God  through  the  medium  of  the 
reason,  without  the  written  Word,  while,  without  the 
saving  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  others  may  have 
the  Word  in  their  hands  or  most  faithfully  preached 
to  them,  and  fail  to  find  God.  Is  not  the  former 
of  these  two  facts  illustrated  by  exceptional  cases 
among  the  heathen  of  to-day  ?  And  is  not  the  lat- 
ter fact  only  too  sadly  exemplified  in  the  life  and 
conduct  of  thousands  in  every  Christian  land  ? 


SECOND   CHARGE.  83 

Had  Dr.  Briggs  taught  that  the  Bible  alone  is  a 
fountain,  channel,  or  medium  of  Divine  authority, 
through  which  mankind  are  savingly  influenced  by 
the  Spirit  of  God,  and  that  the  Spirit  never  works 
through  the  instrumentality  of  the  Church  or  the 
Reason,  either  together  with  or  apart  from  the  written 
Word,  it  would  have  been  right  to  have  charged  him 
with  teaching  heresy.  But  to  convict  him  of  heresy 
for  teaching  the  doctrine  regarding  the  Bible,  the 
Church,  and  the  Reason  which  he  does  teach,  was 
worse  than  a  mistake.  The  Church  should  have 
been  grateful  to  him  for  calling  attention  to  the 
proper  relations  of  these  three  God-ordained  media 
of  Divine  authority  which  seem  to  be  so  imperfectly 
understood. 


84  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 


CHAPTER   VII. 

THIRD    CHARGE:    INERRANCY    OF   SCRIPTURE. 

TO  use  the  language  of  the  prosecution,  "  The 
third  charge  has  reference  to  the  subject  of 
inspiration.  In  it  Dr.  Briggs  is  charged  with  teach- 
ing that  errors  may  have  existed  in  the  original  text 
of  Scripture  as  it  came  from  its  authors.  Dr.  Briggs 
admits  the  correctness  of  the  facts  stated  in  the  spe- 
cifications, and  that  the  charge  correctly  states  his 
teaching  on  this  point,  but  denies  that  it  is  an 
offence." 

In  opening  his  defence  against  this  charge  Dr. 
Briggs  said,  "  I  agree  to  the  doctrine  that  Holy 
Scripture  Ms  the  Word  of  God  written,'  'immediately 
inspired,'  and  'the  rule  of  faith  and  practice.'"  In 
the  course  of  his  defence  he  affirmed  his  belief  in 
"  plenary  or  full  inspiration."  He  further  said  :  "  The 
prosecution  cite  section  iv.  in  order  to  prove  that  Holy 
Scripture  'is  the  Word  of  God.'  There  can  be  no 
doubt  of  this.  ...  I  can  sincerely  subscribe  to  both 
statements,  'is  the  Word  of  God'  and  'contains  the 
Word  of  God.'  Throughout  his  whole  defence  Dr. 
Briggs  steadfastly  maintained  the  position  lie  had 
previously  held,  as  indicated  by  the  following  ansv. 
given  by  him  to  questions  submitted  to  him  by  the 


THIRD  CHARGE.  85 

directors  of  Union  Theological  Seminary,  and  used  as 
evidence  in  his  trial  before  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York :  — 

Question  1.  "Do  you  consider  the  Bible,  the  Church, 
and  the  Eeason  as  co-ordinate  sources  of  authority  ?  " 

Answer.      "No." 

Question  2.  "Do  you  believe  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments  to  be  the  only  infallible  rule  of 
faith  and  practice  ?  " 

Answer.      "Yes." 

Question  3.  "Would  you  accept  the  following  as  a 
satisfactory  definition  of  inspiration :  *  Inspiration  is  such 
a  Divine  direction  as  to  secure  an  infallible  record  of  God's 
revelations  in  respect  to  both  faith  and  doctrine  '?" 

Answer.     "Yes." 

Question  4.  "Do  you  believe  the  Bible  inerrant  in 
all  matters  concerning  faith  and  practice,  and  in  every- 
thing in  which  it  is  a  revelation  from  God  as  a  vehicle  of 
Divine  truth,  and  that  there  are  no  errors  which  disturb 
its  infallibility  in  these  matters  or  in  its  records  of  the 
historic  events  and  institutions  with  which  they  are 
inseparably  connected  ?  " 

Answer.      "Yes." 

Question  5.  "Do  you  believe  that  the  miracles  re- 
corded in  the  Scriptures  are  due  to  an  extraordinary 
exercise  of  Divine  energy?" 

Answer.      "Yes." 

When  a  minister  of  Dr.  Briggs'  well-known  intelli- 
gence and  candor  could  sincerely  subscribe  to  such 
doctrines  as  these,  and  could  conscientiously  subscribe 
to  the  form  of   doctrine   submitted  to  Presbyterian 


TRIAL  OF   DB    BBJQQ 

min'  ie  of  tbei  t,  the  P 

ing  Committee  might  have  been  assured  that  tl. 
was  some  misunderstanding  on  their  pa 

riling,  when  they  undertook  to  convince  him  and 
ivince  the  whole  Church   that  be  held  a  totally 
different  ue  from   that  which  he  intelligen 

and  honestly  said  he  held.     If  he  refused  to  say  that 
ther<  no  error*  in  the  autographs  or  original 

manuscripts  of  the  writers  of  the  Bible,  the; 

s  been  satisfied  that  he  had  reasons  for  such 
refusal,  which,  when  properly  understood  by  them, 
would  be  found  not  to  confii 

ascription  and  his  ordinati  If  he  beli< 

there  were  i  ad  incidental  kind  in 

the  text  of  Scriptun  now  have   it,  and  that 

some  of  these  onors  may  have  been  in  the  original 
.  they  mi|  that  he  regarded 

those  unimportant  inaccurae  une  sueh 

they  were  regarded  by  the  late  venerable  Dr.  Charles 
Hodge,  i  rote,  in  1 

matic  Theology'5  (voL   i.  p.  170),  the   words:  "No 
man  would  deny  that  the  Parthenon  was  built 
of  marble,  <■  here  and  there  a  speck  of  sand- 

stone should  be  detected  in  its  structure.    Not.  I 
unreasonable  is  it.  to  deny  the  inspiration  of  such  a 
book  as  the  Bible,  because  one  sacred  that 

on  a  given  occasion  twenty-four,  and  anotlx 
thai  -three,  thousand  men  were  .slain."'    'J 

is  pi  Dr.  Briggs  holds,  arid  for  hold- 

ing which   he  has   been   charged    with  heresy,   and 
suspended  from  the  gospel   m 


THIRD  CHARGE.  87 

This  review  might  rest  here,  but  the  doctrine  of  the 
Divine  inspiration  of  Holy  Scripture  is  so  important  a 
doctrine,  and  so  many  seemingly  conflicting  statements 
have  been  made  regarding  it  in  connection  with  the 
trial  of  Dr.  Briggs,  that  the  question  cannot  properly  be 
dismissed  at  this  point.  It  is  right  that  lovers  of  truth 
should  review  the  doctrine  in  the  light  of  the  evidence 
and  arguments  presented  at  the  trial,  and  ascertain,  if 
possible,  whether  the  views  of  Dr.  Briggs  or  of  the 
prosecution  are  correct,  and  what  theory  of  inspiration 
the  Assembly  intended  to  endorse.  Those  who  make 
such  a  review,  with  the  official  report  of  the  Washing- 
ton Assembly  before  them,  will  find  that  the  point 
above  referred  to  is  not  the  only  instance  in  which  Dr. 
Briggs  is  in  agreement,  and  the  prosecution  at  vari- 
ance, with  the  venerable  Princeton  divine,  —  whom  the 
late  Dr.  Cancllish,  when  both  divines  were  alive,  called 
"  the  greatest  of  living  theologians." 

Those  who  undertake  such  a  review  will  find,  how- 
ever, that,  owing  to  an  almost  entire  absence  of  the 
definition  of  terms,  and  from  the  consequent  fact  that 
technical  words  and  phrases  are  often  used  by  the 
prosecution  in  an  entirely  different  sense  from  that  in 
which  they  are  understood  by  the  defendant,  the  argu- 
ments presented  are  in  some  instances  such  a  tissue 
of  irrelevancy  as  a  reviewer  is  seldom  called  upon  to 
deal  with,  and,  if  possible,  disentangle. 

Every  word  that  clothed  a  concept  regarding  which 
there  was  difference  of  opinion  between  the  prosecu- 
tion and  Dr.  Briggs  should  have  been  specially  con- 
sidered, and  its  technical  meaning  clearly  defined. 
Failing  this,  confusion  was  inevitable. 


88  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

Take  the  word  "  inspiration  "  for  example  ;  what 
does  it  mean  ? 

Here  is  Dr.  Dick's  definition  of  the  term  :  "  Inspira- 
tion is  an  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  under- 
standings, Imaginations,  memories,  and  other  mental 
powers  of  the  sacred  writers  by  which  they  were  quali- 
fied to  communicate  to  the  world  the  knowledge  of 
the  will  of  God." 

Here  is  a  definition  of  the  term  by  Dr.  Charles 
Hodge:  "Inspiration  was  an  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  on  the  minds  of  certain  select  men,  which  ren- 
dered them  the  organs  of  God  for  the  infallible  com- 
munication of  His  mind  and  will." 

Neither  the  Holy  Scriptures  nor  the  Westminster 
standards  contain  any  definition  of  the  term.  They 
deal  with  the  fact  of  inspiration  and  leave  the  precise 
nature  of  it  to  be  learned  from  the  exemplification 
which  the  Scriptures  furnish  of  the  exercise  of  it. 
Conscfjuently  no  one  is  bound  by  any  particular  defi- 
nition of  the  term  or  any  particular  theory  regarding 
it.  But  when  a  controversy  arises  in  which  the  fact 
of  inspiration  is  involved,  it  is  necessary  that  the  con- 
tending parties  shall  have  either  a,  standard  definition 
by  which  to  test  the  correctness  of  their  respective 
theories,  or  else  that  each  of  the  parties  shall  furnish 
a  definition  of  the  term  as  he  understands  it,  that  the 
theories  of  both  may  be  brought  to  the  test  of  what  the 
common  faith  of  the  Church,  based  upon  the  Word  of 
God,  regards  as  the  orthodox  meaning  of  the  term. 

Dr.  Briggs  has  subscribed  to  a  definition  of  the  term 
"  inspiration"  which  will  be  seen  to  be  in  accord  with 


THIRD   CHARGE.  89 

the  two  given  above.  It  is  as  follows :  "  Inspiration  is 
such  a  Divine  direction  as  to  secure  an  infallible  record 
of  God's  revelations  in  respect  to  both  faith  and 
doctrine." 

The  prosecution  do  not  accept  this  definition  but 
they  furnish  no  other.  An  examination  of  their  argu- 
ments, however,  shows  that  they  appear  to  hold  quite 
a  different  doctrine  from  any  of  the  above,  namely, 
the  doctrine  that  inspiration  does  not  extend  merely 
to  the  inspired  man's  utterances  or  writings  in  com- 
municating to  the  world  the  knowledge  of  the  will 
of  God,  but  also  to  his  character  and  to  all  his 
utterances.  They  accordingly  say  :  "  Inspiration,  as 
understood  by  Dr.  Briggs,  is  clearly  not  that  kind  of 
inspiration  which  will  keep  the  inspired  writer  from 
making  mistakes  or  telling  lies."  Their  contention 
seems  to  be  that  no  inspired  writer  could  ever  make  a 
mistake  or  tell  a  lie  whether  in  communicating  to  the 
world  the  knowledge  of  the  mind  and  will  of  God  or  at 
other  times.  They  seem  to  hold  that  everything  re- 
corded in  the  Bible  as  the  utterance  of  a  man  who  was 
known  to  be  used  at  any  time  as  one  of  the  organs  of 
God  for  the  infallible  communication  of  His  mind  and 
will,  must  always  be  inherently  and  absolutely  true. 
They  think  it  is  heresy  to  say  that  an  inspired  man 
could  ever  utter  anything  that  was  not  correct ;  or  at 
least,  that  all  his  utterances  recorded  in  the  Scriptures 
must  of  necessity  be  correct,  whether  they  are  com- 
munications of  the  mind  and  will  of  God  or  are  simply 
the  man's  own  utterances.  Dr.  Briggs,  on  the  other 
hand,  holds  that  it  is  only  when  speaking  under  the 


90  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

guidance  of  Divine  inspiration,  and  therefore  com- 
municating the  mind  and  will  of  God,  that  the  in- 
spired speaker  or  writer  is  uttering  infallible  truth. 
At  other  times  and  in  regard  to  other  matters  than 
the  revelation  of  the  mind  and  will  of  God  he  may  err 
like  an  ordinary  man. 

Who  is  right  in  this,  Dr.  Briggs  or  the  prosecution  ? 
Let  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  answer.  He  says  that  the 
sacred  writers  — 

"  were  fully  inspired  as  to  all  that  they  teach,  whether  of 
doctrine  or  fact.  This  of  course  does  not  imply  that  the 
sacred  writers  were  infallible  except  for  the  special  pur- 
pose for  which  they  were  employed.  They  were  not  im- 
bued with  plenary  knowledge.  As  to  all  matters  of 
science,  philosophy,  and  history,  they  stood  on  the  same 
level  with  their  contemporaries.  They  were  infallible 
only  as  teachers,  and  when  acting  as  the  spokesmen  of 
God.  Their  inspiration  no  more  made  them  astronomers 
than  it  made  them  agriculturists.  Isaiah  was  infallible 
in  his  predictions  although  he  shared  with  his  countrymen 
the  views  then  prevalent  as  to  the  mechanism  of  the  uni- 
verse. Paul  could  not  err  in  anything  he  taught,  although 
he  could  not  recollect  how  many  persons  he  had  baptized 
in  Corinth." 

A  little  farther  on,  in  the  same  connection,  Dr. 
Hodge  adds  :  — 

"  Nor  does  the  Scriptural  doctrine  on  this  subject  imply 
that  the  sacred  writers  were  free  from  errors  in  conduct. 
Their  infallibility  did  not  arise  from  their  holiness,  nor 
did  inspiration  render  them  holy.  Balaam  was  inspired, 
and    Saul    was    among   the   prophets.     David   committed 


THIRD  CHARGE.  91 

many  crimes,  although  inspired  to  write  psalms.  Peter 
erred  in  conduct  at  Antioch;  but  this  does  not  prove  that 
he  erred  in  teaching.  The  influence  which  preserved  him 
from  mistakes  in  teaching  was  not  designed  to  preserve 
him  from  mistakes  in  conduct."  (Systematic  Theology, 
vol.  i.  p.  165.) 

If  this  be  not  sufficient  to  prove  the  correctness  of 
the  position  the  prosecution  once  and  again  almost 
tauntingly  attribute  to  Dr.  Briggs,  turn  to  the  thir- 
teenth chapter  of  the  First  Book  of  Kings  and  read 
at  the  eighteenth  verse  :  — 

"And  he  said  unto  him,  I  also  am  a  prophet  as  thou 
art,  and  an  angel  spake  unto  me  by  the  Word  of  the 
Lord,  saying,  Bring  him  back  with  thee  into  thine  house, 
that  he  may  eat  bread  and  drink  water.  But  he  lied  unto 
him.  So  he  went  back  with  him  and  did  eat  bread  in  his 
house,  and  drank  water.  And  it  came  to  pass,  as  they  sat 
at  the  table,  that  the  Word  of  the  Lord  came  unto  the 
prophet  that  brought  him  back:  and  he  cried  unto  the 
man  of  God  that  came  from  Judah,  saying,  Thus  saith 
the  Lord,  Forasmuch  as  thou  hast  been  disobedient  unto 
the  mouth  of  the  Lord,  and  hast  not  kept  the  command- 
ment which  the  Lord  thy  God  commanded  thee,  but  earnest 
back  and  hast  eaten  bread  and  drunk  water  in  the  place,  of 
the  which  He  said  to  thee,  Eat  no  bread,  and  drink  no 
water ;  thy  carcase  shall  not  come  into  the  sepulchre  of  thy 
fathers." 

And  when  even  that  old  lying  prophet  spoke  under 
the  guidance  of  Divine  inspiration  his  prediction  came 
true.    Hereafter  the  prosecution  and  all  others,  should 


92  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIG' 

be  careful  to  quote  2  Peter  i.  20-21.  not  as  it  is  in  the 
Old  (King  James';  Version  of  the  Bible,  but  in  the 
Revised   Version,  as   follows  :    ;"  Knowing  this   first, 
that  no  prophecy  of  Scripture  is  of  private  interpreta- 
tion.    For  no  prophecy  ever  came  by  the  will  of  man : 
but  men  spake  from  God.  being  moved  by  the  B 
Ghost."     The  Old  Version  says,  "holy  men  of  God 
spake  ;"  but  it  is  evident  from  this  passage  in  I 
Kings,  as  well  as  other  passages  that  might  t 
that  men  who  were  not  holy  sometimes  spake  as  I 
were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  just  as  it  has  I 
made  clear  also  that  holy  men  did  not  always  speak 
as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy 
spake  as  ordinary  men,  and  their  utterances,  whet 
correct  or  incorrect,  are  truthfully  recorded  w< 
have  been  chosen  to  form  part  of  the  book  which  we 
know  as,  and  which  truly  is,  the  Word  of  I 

Was   the  lying   utterance  of   the  old   prophet  in- 
spired of  God  ?     No  one  will  claim  that  it  wi 
is  a  part  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures.    Then,  is  all  scrip- 
ture not  given  by  inspiration  o:    G       I     Arc   we  to 
regard  the   rendering   of   2  Timothy  iii.    16,  in   the 
Revised  Version,  as  decisive  as  to  this  :  —  the  reading 
being,  not  u  All  scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of 
God,"  nor  "  every  scripture  is  inspired  of  God,"  as  in 
the  margin  of  the  Revised  Version,  but  '"  Every  scrip- 
ture inspired  of  God  is  also  profitable  for  teach! 
etc.     Shall  we  adopt  this   view  and  say  that  some 
statements  in  Scripture  are  not  inspired  ?     N 
means.      But   whatever    interpretation   be   put   upon 
2  Tim.  iii.  16,  it  is  manifest  that  some  pai  3  Brio- 


THIKD   CHARGE.  93 

ture  are  not  inspired  in  the  same  sense  in  which 
others  are  ;  and  it  is  here  that  the  prosecution  have 
fallen  into  the  greatest  number  of  mistakes  and  the 
greatest  confusion.  They  appear  to  have  treated  the 
word  "  inspiration  "  as  if  it  were  always  to  be  under- 
stood in  the  same  sense,  —  as  if  the  malicious  utter- 
ances of  Satan  recorded  in  Holy  Scripture  were 
inspired  in  the  same  sense  with  the  seraphic  utter- 
ances of  the  prophet  Isaiah  or  the  apostle  John. 

Let  us  have  a  definite  understanding  of  what  in- 
spiration is,  from  a  careful  analysis  of  the  orthodox 
belief  regarding  it.  "  Inspiration "  in  itself  is  one 
and  the  same  always.  ,  It  is  the  special  in-breathing  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  to  qualify  men  for  certain  work  in 
connection  with  the  speaking  and  writing  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures  and  the  transmission  of  them  in  canonical 
form  to  mankind  as  the  Word  of  God.  While  inspira- 
tion is  always  the  same  in  this,  that  it  infallibly  guides 
the  subjects  of  it  in  doing  the  particular  work  assigned 
them,  the  work  assigned  to  different  inspired  men  is 
different. 

1.  Some  men,  under  the  special  guidance  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  uttered  eternal  and  unchangeable  truth, 
the  very  mind  and  will  of  God.  This  was  true  of  the 
prophets,  apostles,  and  others  who  "  spake  from  God, 
being  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  This  exercise  of 
inspiration  was  often,  if  not  always,  accompanied  by 
"  revelation,"  the  imparting  of  knowledge. 

2.  Others,  under  the  special  guidance  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  recorded  with  infallible  wisdom  and  truthful- 
ness whatever  God  designed  should  be  embodied  in 


94  TRIAL  OF  DR.  JililGGS. 

Hie  Holy  Scriptures.  Ft  might  be  said  thai  such  men 
selected  and  wrote  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy 
Gho  it  was  the  selecting  of  what  they  v.. 

that  was  infallibly  wise,  and  the  recording  of  it  that 

was  infallibly  true,  and  not.  nee. 
the  thoughts  recorded.    The  thoughts  and  •.. 
good  men  who  some!  poke  incorrectly  and  un- 

wisely are  faithfully  recorded  when  they  form  part  of 
the  \l')\y  Scriptures.     6  whether 

or  foolish,  of  wicked  men.  .So  also  are  the  words  of 
•Satan  himself. 

8.  Others,  under  the  special  guidance  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  collected  and   arranged   the  various  writ 
that  .  or  both 

and  written,  under  the  guidance  of  the  same  Spirit; 
so  that  they  form  the  canon  of  Sacred  Scripto 

It  is  in  the  second  and  third  of  the  abo 
that  the  Bible  is  wholly  inspired.     What/  .    be 

said  of  some  statements  recorded  in  Scripture,  when 

red  in  the  light  of  the  first  of  the  above  m 
inspiration,  in  the  light  of  the  second  and  third  of  the 
above  sense!  given  by  inspiration 

of  God." 

There  is  a  fourth  sense  in  which  the  Bible  is  the 
inspired  word  of  God  ;  namely,  in  that  when,  through 
a  proper  understanding  of  the  consent  of  all  its  parts, 
the  teaching  of  the  Spirit  by  means  of  this  word  of 
elation  is  learned,  that  teaching  is  the  truth,  the 
whole  truth,  and  nothing  hut  the  truth.  It  is  the 
Led  will  of  God 

The   prosecution,  through   Dr.  Lampe,  make   the 


THIKD  CHAEGE.  95 

statement  that  "  the  entire  epistle  to  the  Hebrews 
carries  out  this  idea  that  the  statements  of  Scripture 
are  the  sayings  of  God."  If  by  this  they  mean  that 
all  the  statements  contained  in  the  Bible  are  utter- 
ances that  were  inspired  of  God  in  the  first  sense 
given  above,  they  state  what  is  obviously  not  correct. 
Yet  in  the  second,  third,  and  fourth  senses  given 
above,  all  the  statements  of  Scripture  form  the.  Word 
of  God,  the  "  most  necessary  "  revelation  of  His  will 
to  man. 

Some  who  hold  that  the  whole  Bible  has  been  writ- 
ten and  given  to  man  under  special  Divine  guidance, 
do  not  call  that  providential  superintendence  which 
has  secured  the  infinitely  wise  and  truthful  recording 
of  all  that  is  contained  in  the  Bible  "  inspiration " 
(just  as  they  and  others  do  not  call  by  the  name  of 
"  inspiration "  the  providential  oversight  by  which 
the  Word  of  God  has  been  kept  pure  through  all  the 
ages).  They  call  by  the  name  ci  inspiration "  only 
the  act  of  God  in  enduing  men  to  speak  or  write  that 
which  is  in  and  of  itself  the  eternal  and  unchange- 
able truth  of  God.  But  so  long  as  they  hold  to  the 
fact  of  infallible  guidance  having  been  given  for  the 
second,  third,  and  fourth  purposes  above  named,  it 
matters  little  by  what  name  that  guidance  is  called, 
so  long  as  no  violence  is  done  to  Scripture  teaching. 

Now,  the  strange  confusion,  misunderstanding,  and 
disagreement  between  the  prosecution  and  Dr.  Briggs 
has  been  due  mainly,  so  far  as  tin's  question  is  con- 
cerned, to  a  misunderstanding  and  misuse  of  the  term 
"  inspiration. " 


96  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIG' 

The  prosecution  seem  never  to  discriminate  b 
inspiration  in  th<  Ora- 

tion in  the   second,  third,  or  fourth  They 

appear  to  assume  that  while  *  roly  one  kin  I 

inspiration,  that  inspiration 

way,  and  for  the  doing  of  only  one  thing.     They  rea- 
son as  if  every  person  who 

of  what  is  contained  in  the  Bible  m  .  been  a 

saint,  and  (hat  every  statement  recorded  in  the  J> 
must   be   inherently  .  as  well  as  truthfully  re- 

corded and  chosen  with  infalli  Mm  part 

of  the  Scriptures,  which  shall   be  profitable  for  d 
trine,  for   reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in 
righteous]  j 

The  prosecution  do  not  attempt  any  explanation 
the  fact  that   statements   are  recorded   in  ti. 
which  are  in  themselves  the  very  oppc 
of  God.      The  following  sentence  is  an  exampl 
the  vague  and  general  way  in  k  02  the 

whole  subject:  -The  hooks  were  mritl 
the  God  of  truth  is  in  such  a  deep  sen  Author 

that  everything  written  there'  .be- 

lieved, and  obeyed,  because  it  u  the  Word  of  God." 

Is  the  devil's  statement,  ;-  Ye  shall  not  surely 
to  be  received,  believed,  and  obeyed  because  it  if 
the  Bible?  to  take  every  statement  we  find 

in  the  Bible  as  in  itself  an  expression  of  the  mind  and 
will  of  God  ?    May  we  take  ai 
where  recorded  in  the  Bible  and  regard  it  as  in  if 
absolutely  correct  simph  ;s  truthfully  re- 

corded in  the  Word  of  God?      M  .hooae  a  I 


THIRD   CHARGE.  97 

indiscriminately  and  call  it  one  of  the  true  savings  of 
God  ?  I  was  taught  a  different  doctrine  at  Princeton, 
and  in  a  way  that  impressed  it  upon  my  memory.  It 
was  in  connection  with  the  preaching  of  my  "  ten- 
minute  sermon  "  in  the  "  Oratory. "  I  chose  for  my 
text  a  verse  that  had  long  been  precious  to  me  (Job 
xxii.  21):  ''Acquaint  now  thyself  with  Him  and  be 
at  peace  ;  thereby  good  shall  come  unto  thee."  At  the 
close  of  my  effort,  Professor  C.  Wistar  Hodge,  D.  D., 
the  presiding  critic  on  that  evening,  called  attention 
to  the  fact  that  I  had  spoken  of  the  words  of  the  text 
as  the  words  of  God,  and  had  treated  them  as  such ; 
while,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  they  were  the  words  of 
Eliphaz  the  Temanite,  who  was  not  speaking  under 
the  guidance  of  Divine  inspiration,  and  had  entirely 
misunderstood  Job's  righteous  character,  and  was  con- 
sequently giving  him  poor  counsel  and  miserable  com- 
fort (see  Job  xlii.  7).  "  You  are  all  right  this  time, 
however,"  said  the  professor;  "for  the  lessons  you 
have  drawn  from  the  text  are  good,  and  the  text  itself, 
as  you  have  interpreted  it,  is  confirmed  by  other  parts 
of  Scripture ;  but  in  future  look  more  carefully  at  the 
context."  I  began  to  learn  the  lesson  then,  and  have 
been  learning  it  more  and  more  ever  since.  But  after 
nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century  of  searching  the  Scrip- 
tures, one  finds  he  has  still  much  to  learn  in  order  to 
be  thoroughly  skilled  in  "  rightly  dividing  the  word 
of  truth."  He  knows  that  many  errors  of  doctrine 
are  faithfully  recorded  in  the  Word  of  God,  and  they 
are  not  always  labelled  "  errors." 

For  the  prosecution  to  demand  that  a  minister  shall 


98  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGQS. 

say  that  there  are  no  literary  errors  recorded  in  the 
Bible,  when  it  is  well  known  to  contain  recorded 
errors  of  an  unspeakably  graver  nature,  seems  very 
Btrange.  II",  as  we  have  seen,  all  that  the  Bible  con- 
tains w.-is  not  spoken  by  inspired  men,  and  if,  as  we 
have  also  seen,  inspired  men  did  not  always  %ptak 
as  they  were  moved  by  the  Boly  Ghost,  as  in  the  ease 
of  the  old  prophet  at  Bethel,  then  all  that  inspiration 
had  to  <lo  with  these  uninspired  utterances  was  to 
guide  as  to  whether  they  should  or  should  not  be 
recorded,  and  if  they  were  to  be  recorded,  to  guide  to 
the  truthful  recording  of  them.  When  thus  recorded 
they  became  pari  of  the  inspired  record,  though  not 
in  the  first  sense  above  named.  They  arc  not  to  be 
for  instruction  in  the  positive  sense  of  having  to  be 
received,  believed,  and  obeyed,  but  in  such  other  way 
as  the  consent  of  all  the  parts  of  Scripture,  under  the 
guidance  of  the  Boly  Spirit,  Bhall  teach. 

"But,"  say  the  prosecution,  "that  the  Confession 
does  not  tolerate  the  idea  of  the  presence  of  errors  in 

the   Holy    Scripture   is  still    further  evident    from  the 

fact  that  the  entire  perfection  of  the  Scripture  is  given 
;is  proof  that  it  is  the  Word  of  God,  while  the  asser- 
tion is  made  thai  the  Holy  Spirit  assures  the  believer 
of  the  'infallible  truth  and  divine  authority  thereof/ 
A  hook  which  contains  errors  cannot  have  the  quality 
of  'entire  perfection,'  and  the  Holy  Spirit  could  not 
assure  us  of  its  'infallible  truth.'" 

Such  reasoning  as  this  would  compel  any  one  who 
accepted  it,  to  reject  the  Bible  and  declare  that  it 
cannot  have  the  quality  of  entire  perfection.    It  would 


THIRD   CHARGE.  99 

lead  some  to  say  that  since  our  present  translations 
of  the  Bible  contain  errors  they  are  not  to  be  trusted 
as  the  Word  of  God.  It  would  lead  others  to  say  that 
since  the  false  words  of  Satan  are  in  the  Bible  it  can- 
not be  infallibly  true.  We  may  be  thankful  that  the 
above  statement  by  the  prosecution  is  a  misstatement. 
The  statement  with  which  they  follow  it  is  true  :  "Our 
standards  teach  the  truthfulness  of  the  entire  written 
Bible,  because  it  is  the  '  very  Word '  of  the  God  of 
truth."  But  the  prosecution  seem  not  to  understand 
the  true  meaning  of  their  own  sentence.  They  have 
fallen  foul  of  another  term  which  they  have  failed  to 
define.  They  have  not  discerned  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  terms  "  the  very  Word  of  God  "  and  u  the 
very  words  of  God."  They  evidently  think  that  every 
sentence  of  the  Bible  is  inspired  in  the  first  of  the 
senses  named  above,  and  that  the  lying  words  of 
Satan  or  of  wicked  men,  with  other  foolish  or  inac- 
curate statements,  by  being  truthfully  recorded  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  become,  not  simply  parts  of  the  book 
called,  and  which  truly  is,  "  the  Word  of  God,"  but 
become  transformed  into  the  "  very  words  "  of  God, 
in  the  sense  of  having  the  thought  they  express  in- 
dorsed by  Him. 

In  the  above  quotation  the  prosecution  have  stum- 
bled at  another  simple  word  which  they  seem  never 
to  have  defined  to  themselves.  It  is  the  word 
"errors."  They  have  failed  to  perceive  the  differ- 
ence between  "  errors,"  or  "  an  error,"  and  "  error  " 
in  the  discussion  of  this  subject.  The  word  "  errors  " 
as  used  by  Dr.  Briggs  means  wrong  statements,  inac- 


100  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

curacies ;  the  singular  of  the  word  would  apply  to  one 
such  mistake.  But  the  word  "  error "  is  used  in  a 
different  sense,  namely,  that  not  of  inadvertent  mis- 
take, but  false  teaching.  Dr.  Briggs,  in  common  with 
all  orthodox  Presbyterians,  holds  that  the  Bible  con- 
tains no  "error"  in  this  sense.  Whatever  inadvertent 
mistakes  as  to  dates  or  other  circumstantial  matters 
may  be  recorded  in  it,  —  yes,  and  whatever  false  doc- 
trine uttered  by  Naamathite,  Shuhite,  or  Temanite, 
or  by  Satan  himself,  may  be  recorded  in  it,  —  it  never 
teaches  error.  Dr.  Charles  Hodge,  in  his  "  Systematic 
Theology,"  again  and  again  insists  upon  this  distinc- 
tion. In  vol.  i.  p.  169,  he  says :  "  Do  the  Scriptures 
teach  what  from  any  source  can  be  proved  not  to  be 
true  ?  The  question  is  not  whether  the  views  of  the 
sacred  writers  were  incorrect,  but  whether  they  taught 
error.  For  example,  it  is  not  the  question  whether 
they  thought  that  the  earth  is  the  centre  of  our  sys- 
tem, but  did  they  teacli  that  it  is  ?" 

Apply  this  to  the  Bible  as  a  whole.  The  question 
is  not  what  statements  the  Bible  contains,  but  what 
does  it  teach?  Whatever  may  be  the  recorded  views 
of  some  of  those  whose  false  utterances  or  inaccurate 
statements  are  made  to  form  part  of  the  Bible  narra- 
tive, the  Bible  itself  teaches  nothing  but  the  truth. 
Had  the  prosecution  appreciated  these  distinctions, then 
instead  of  saying  that  "  the  Confession  does  not  toler- 
ate the  idea  of  the  presence  of  errorsin  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures," they  would  have  said  that  "  the  Confession  does 
not  tolerate  the  idea  of  the  teaching  of  error  by  the 
Holy  Scriptures."     And  instead  of  saying  "  A  book 


THIRD   CHARGE.  101 

which  contains  errors  cannot  have  the  quality  of  '  en- 
tire perfection,'  and  the  Holy  Spirit  could  not  assure 
us  of  its  '  infallible  truth/  "  they  would  have  said  :  "A 
book  which  teaches  error  cannot  have  the  quality  of 
1  entire  perfection,'  "  etc. 

The  prosecution  also  mistake  the  meaning  of  the 
word  "  truthfulness."  They  evidently  think  of  it 
as  being  inherent  in  words  and  sentences,  instead  of 
in  the  utterer  of  the  words  and  sentences  and  in  the 
doctrines  those  words  and  sentences  are  made  to  teach. 
A  man  is  not  made  truthful  simply  by  uttering  words 
that  are  true ;  nor  does  a  truthful  man  become  un- 
truthful by  quoting  the  false  words  of  others.  It  is  by 
the  use  he  makes  of  those  words  that  we  judge  of  his 
veracity. 

The  prosecution  contend  that  if  the  Bible  contains 
within  its  pages  any  of  the  false  words  of  men  "  it 
lacks  the  one  essential  of  infallibility,  absolute  truth- 
fulness of  all  its  contents."  One  cannot  but  be 
amazed  that  intelligent  men  should  reason  in  such  a 
way.  "Infallibility"  is  almost  the  only  term  the 
prosecution  have  undertaken  to  give  a  definition  of. 
But  even  it  they  did  not  define  in  the  technical  sense 
in  which  it  is  used  in  connection  with  the  doctrine  of 
inspiration,  but  in  its  common  acceptation.  It  was 
easier  for  them  to  do  this.  All  they  had  to  do  was 
to  turn  up  the  word  in  Webster's  Dictionary,  and  then 
write  down  the  sentence  :  "  Webster  defines  the  word 
infallible  as  '  not  fallible  ;  not  capable  of  erring ;  en- 
tirely exempt  from  liability  to  mistake  ;  unerring,  in- 
errable.' "     But  no  sooner  have  they  gotten  this  good, 


102  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 


orthodox,  lay  definition  of  the  word  than  they  misuse 

it  by  coupling  it  with  the  word  u  errors  "  which  they 

have  not  found  a  definition  of,  and  therefore  n 

the  sense  of  "  error  "  or  false  teaching-,  and  say  :  '•  In 

plain  English  therefore,  a  book  which  is  pervaded 

errors  '  to  an  indefinite  extent '  cannot  be  an  infallible 

rule." 

But  it  is  unnecessary  to  go  on  exposing  the  fallacies 
of  the  argument  of  the  prosecution  by  which  they  sup- 
port equally  fallacious  charges.    Enough  lias  1 
to  enable  the  reader  to  understand  that,  by  faijin. 
have  before  their  minds  any  clear  and  correct  defini- 
tion  of   such   terms   as  "  inspiration,"  "  plenary,  or 
full,  inspiration,"  ~  Word  of  God,"  i:  wot 
"errors,"    "error,"   "truthfulne-  the    pr 

cution  were  wholly  unable  to  understand  the  position 
of  Dr.  Briggs.  And  it  was  just  as  impossible  for  Dr. 
Briggs  to  explain  his  position  to  them.  He  dispk 
great  skill  in  the  attempt,  but  failed.  When  he  spoke 
of  inspiration  in  one  sense  they  understood  it  in  a 
different  sense.  When  he  addressed  himself  to  the 
task  of  defending  himself  in  the  light  ration  as 

they  appeared  to  understand  the  term,  lie  found  that 
they  made  the  word  in  that  m  vet  more  ground 

than  his  own  reason  and  intelligence  would  allow  him 
to  make  it  cover.     He  could  find  no  meaning  and 
of  the  word  that  would  meet  all  the  purposes  they 
made  it  serve. 

So  also  when  Dr.  Briggs  spoke  of  u  errors,"  sub- 
stantially in  the  sense  of  quotations  of  erroneous 
statements,  as  being  found  in  the  Bible,  they  regarded 


THIRD  CHARGE.  103 

him  as  speaking  of  error,  or  false  teaching,  or  that 
which  in  some  way  impaired  the  infallibility  of  the 
Bible  as  the  Word  of  God.  It  was  in  vain  that  he 
uttered  this  memorable  sentence  :  "  The  only  errors  I 
have  found  or  ever  recognized  in  Holy  Scripture  have 
been  beyond  the  range  of  faith  and  practice,  and  there- 
fore they  do  not  impair  the  infallibility  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture as  a  rule  of  faith  and  practice." 

This  one  sentence,  uttered  by  a  man  of  Dr.  Briggs' 
scholarship  and  ability  as  a  Biblical  critic,  is  of  more 
value  than  all  the  vague  theories  of  inerrancy  that 
have  ever  been  thought  out. 

Had  Dr.  Briggs  said  that  he  had  found  that  the 
Bible  teaches  error,  or  that  its  writers  disagree  in  their 
teaching,  one  holding  one  doctrine  regarding  the  origin 
of  man  and  another  another,  or  one  proclaiming  one 
way  of  salvation  and  another  another,  there  would  then 
have  been  cause  for  alarm.  But  when,  after  the  most 
scholarly  critical  study  of  ancient  manuscripts,  and  of 
the  Bible  in  our  own  language  as  well  as  in  the  original 
and  other  tongues,  he  is  able  to  say  that  he  can  neither 
find,  nor  see  that  any  other  person  has  found,  any 
errors  in  the  Bible  that  are  of  any  vital  importance 
whatever,  the  Church  should  rejoice,  and  be  glad  that 
it  has  in  its  ministry  a  scholar  who  is  fully  able  to 
cope  with  the  foes  of  the  Bible  on  their  own  ground, 
and  defend  its  authority  from  being  interfered  with  by 
their  unjust  allegations. 

In  the  light  of  this  analysis  of  the  orthodox  view 
of  inspiration,  to  which  Dr.  Briggs  subscribes,  it  is 
easy  to  see  how  he  could  hold  both  that  the  Bible 


104  TRIAL  OF   DR.  BRIGGS. 

contain*  the  Word  of  God  and  is  the  Word  of  God  ; 
how  he  could  affirm  both  that  it  contains  errors,  and 

is  wholly  free  from  error.      Not  knowing  the  sense  in 

which  these  terms  are  used,  the  prosecution  could  no 
more  understand  them  than,  without  a  proper  knowl- 
edge of  the  sense  in  which  the  words  were  used,  they 
could  understand  Paul's  list,  of  paradoxes,  in  which 
he  speaks  of  himself  and  his  fellow-Christians  "as 
deceivers,  and  yet  true  ;  as  unknown,  and  yet  well- 
known;  as  dying, and  behold  we  live,  .  .  .  as  having 
nothing,  and  yet  possessing  all  things." 

The  great  Dr.  Robert  South  1ms  a  sermon  on 
"The  Fatal  [mpostureand  Force  of  Words,"  from  the 
text  Isaiah  v.  20:  "  Woe  unto  them  that  call  evil  good, 
and  good  evil  ;  that  put  darkness  for  light,  and  light 
for  darkness  ;  Unit  put  hitler-  for  sweet,  and  sweet  for 
hitter."  He  opens  the  outline  of  his  sermon  with  the 
words  :  — 

"Here  a  woe  is  denounced  against  those,  not,  only  in 
particular,  who  judicially  pronounce  the  guilty  innocent, 
and  the  innocent  guilty,  hut  in  general,  who,  by  abusing 
men's  minds  with  false  notions,  make,  evil  pass  tor  good, 

and  good  for  evil." 

Ilnd  Dr.  South  lived  in  our  day  lie  might  have 
found  a  Striking  illustration  of  his  theme  in  connection 
with  the  trial  of  Dr.  Briggs  —  only  Unit  tin;  fatality  con- 
nected with  the  imposture  and  force  of  words,  in  this 
case,  was  riot,  intentional,  hut  manifestly  inadvertent. 
But,  inadvertent  though  it  was,  it  may  he  questioned 
if  there  has  ever   he-en   in  our  day  so  remarkahle  an 


THIRD  CHARGE.  105 

exhibition  of  misunderstanding  between  brethren, 
from  the  misuse  and  misunderstanding  of  words  and 
terms,  as  was  witnessed  at  the  Washington  Assembly. 
But  there  is  one  objection  which  the  prosecution 
urge  against  the  above  orthodox  view  of  inspiration 
which  demands  a  few  words  in  closing.  They  claim 
that  "  this  teaching  subjects  the  Bible  to  the  reason  ; " 
that  "  each  man  must  determine  for  himself  by  his 
own  reason  or  conscience  how  much  may  be  accepted 
as  the  Word  of  God." 

The  prosecution  seem  to  have  a  sacred  dread  of  the 
thought  of  using  their  reason  in  matters  of  religion. 
In  all  soberness,  I  believe  that  this  accounts  for  the 
singularly  unreasonable  positions  they  have  taken  up 
in  connection  with  this  whole  case.  They  are  too 
sensitive  on  this  point.  A  little  reason  is  necessary 
in  dealing  with  the  contents  of  the  Bible.  Even 
ordinary  common-sense  helps.  Not  a  little  reason 
is  necessary,  but  a  great  deal  on  the  part  of  some. 
We  must  "  search  the  Scriptures."  The  Bible  was 
not  written  in  such  a  way  as  to  encourage  indolence, 
but  to  develop  diligence.  The  doctrine  that  it  is  all 
alike  nutritious,  and  therefore  you  need  not  trouble 
yourself  "  dividing  "  it,  but  may  just  read  a  few  verses 
now  and  then  anywhere,  is  the  lazy  man's  doctrine. 
If  he  treats  God's  great  book  of  nature  in  this  way, 
full  of  the  goodness  of  the  Lord  though  it  be,  he  will 
find  himself  eating  poison  instead  of  wholesome  food 
one  day. 

In  using  the  Bible  one  must  do  more  than  use 
his  reason,  including  his  conscience  and  whole  moral 


106  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

nature.     He  must  listen  to  what  the  Church  has 
say  through  its  various  ministries  and   ordinanc 
and  while  using  the  "  Word  "  and  the  "  sacraments,'* 
he  must  not  forget  "  prayer."    He  must  ask  for  God's 
Spirit  to  be  given  him.     "  He  shall  guide  you  into  all 
the  truth."     "  He  shall  teach  you  all  tilings.*' 

Besides  all  this,  one  must  give  his  heart  to 
The  Bible  has  not  been  written  in  such  a  way  that 
men  can  arrive  at  certainty  regarding   its  contents 
without  making  a  saving  use  of  them.     ';  Tl 
of  the  Lord  is  with  them  that  fear  Him,  and  He  will 
show  them  His  covenant."      And  one  must  lead  a 
consistent  Christian  life  if  he  would  reach  certainty 
regarding  the  Bible  and  its  teachings.     If  we  do  Hifl 
will  we  shall  know  of  the  doctrine.     "  Unto  the  up- 
right there  ariseth  light  in  the  darkness."     "  All  the 
paths  of  the  Lord  are  lovingkindness  and  truth  unto 
such   as   keep    His   covenant    and   His  testimon' 
And  one  must  be  pure  and  gentle  and  Christlike  in 
all  things  if  he  would  reach  the  highest  degree  of 
certainty.     "  The  meek  will  He  guide  in  judgment, 
the  weak  will  He  teach  His  way."     "  Blessed  are  the 
pure  in  heart,  for  they  shall  see  God."     In  harmony 
with  all  these  Scripture  statements  are  the  folio-. 
words  of  R.  Rothe  :  — 

"It  is  only  the  pious  subject  that  can  speculate  theo- 
logically. And  why?  Because  it  is  he  alone  who  has  the 
original  datum,  in  virtue  of  communion  with  Grod,  on 
which  the  dialectic  lays  hold.       S  m   as  the  original 

datum  is  there,  everything  else  becomes  simply  a  matter 
of  logic." 


THIRD   CHARGE.  107 

But  in  no  way  can  the  prosecution's  objection  to 
the  above  orthodox  doctrine  of  inspiration  be  more 
directly  met  than  by  quoting  the  fifth  section  of  the 
first  chapter  of  the  "  Confession  of  Faith,"  which  both 
confirms  the  doctrine  and  shows  that  heresy  lurks  in 
the  heart  of  their  objection  to  it. 

"  V.  We  may  be  moved  and  induced  by  the  testimony 
of  the  Church  to  an  high  and  reverend  esteem  of  the  Holy 
Scripture :  and  the  heavenliness  of  the  matter,  the  efficacy 
of  the  doctrine,  the  majesty  of  the  style,  the  consent  of  all 
the  parts,  the  scope  of  the  whole  (which  is  to  give  all 
glory  to  God),  the  full  discovery  it  makes  of  the  only  way 
of  man's  salvation,  the  many  other  incomparable  excellen- 
cies, and  the  entire  perfection  thereof,  are  arguments 
whereby  it  doth  abundantly  evidence  itself  to  be  the  Word 
of  God;  yet  notwithstanding,  our  full  persuasion  and 
assurance  of  the  infallible  truth,  and  Divine  authority 
thereof,  is  from  the  inward  work  of  tbe  Holy  Spirit,  bear- 
ing witness  by  and  with  the  Word  in  our  hearts." 

For  further  light  as  to  the  way  of  ascertaining  the 
mind  of  the  Spirit  as  He  speaks  in  the  Word,  take 
section  ix.  of  the  same  chapter  of  the  "  Westminster 

Confession  "  :  — 

"The  infallible  rule  of  interpretation  of  Scripture  is 
the  Scripture  itself:  and  therefore  when  there  is  a  ques- 
tion about  the  true  and  full  sense  of  any  scripture  (which 
is  not  manifold,  but  one)  it  must  be  searched  and  known 
by  other  places  that  speak  more  clearly. " 


108  TRIAL  01  DR,  BRIGG& 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

FOURTH    AND    FIFTH    CHARGES  :  SHIP    OF    THE 

PENTATEUCH    AMD   THE   BOOK    OP   ISAIAH. 

THE  fourth  chai  h  accuses  Dr.   B 

heresy  for  teaching   that    M  rt  the 

author  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  the  fifth,  which  chai 
him  with  heresy  for  teaching  thai  Isaiah  was  not  the 
author  of  one  half  of  the  hook  that  bears  his  name,  may 
be   considered   together,  as  they  stand   in  the  same 
relation  to  both  Scripture  and  the  Con 
If  the  Confessional  ru  Lleged,have  been 

alike  broken  in  both  cases,  are  shown  not  to  have  been 
broken  in  one  ease,  then  it  follows  that  tl.  not 

been  broken  in  the  other.     The  rule*  said 

to  have  been  violated  are:   (1)  "that  the  Holy  Scrip- 
ture evidences  itself  to  be  the  Word  of  Cod  by  the 
consent  of  all  the  pj    I  -:"   and   (2)  "The  infall 
rule    of   interpretation   of  Scripture   is  t; 
•itself." 

The  citing  of  rl.  roles  by  the  prosec 

shows  t:.  feel  hampered  at  the  outset  by  the 

fact  that  the  Bible  nowhere  .says  that  M  the 

author  of  the  Pentateuch,  or  tl.  the 

whole  book  that  beai  me,  and  that  there  is  no 

such  claim  made  anywhere  in  the  (  j.ith. 


FOURTH  AND  FIFTH  CHARGES.  109 

They  find  themselves  compelled  to  try  to  prove  this 
charge  of  heresy  by  inference ;  namely,  the  inference 
that  teaching  that  Moses  is  not  the  author  of  the 
Pentateuch,  and  that  Isaiah  did  not  write  the  whole 
book  that  bears  his  name,  in  some  way  contravenes 
the  two  Confessional  statements  given  above. 

It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  in  seeking  to  estab- 
lish this  inference,  the  prosecution  inadvertently  enter 
the  field  of  "  higher  criticism  "  themselves,  and  by  the 
very  literary  methods  which  they  condemn,  and  by 
which  Dr.  Briggs  substantiates  his  views,  they  seek 
to  overthrow  these  views.  Evidently,  however,  they 
are  not  at  home  in  this  field,  and  tread  somewhat 
cautiously  as  follows  :  — 

"  The  Pentateuch  itself  points  to  Moses  as  its  author. 
It  speaks  of  him  as  a  maker  of  books,  in  which  he  wrote 
history  and  laws  by  the  command  of  Jehovah. "  "  The  laws 
of  all  the  codes  appear  in  the  Pentateuch  as  a  unit  on  the 
background  of  Israel's  wilderness  life,  not  mutually  con- 
flicting, but  mutually  supplementary  to  each  other." 

They  even  quote  the  opinion  of  a  distinguished 
"  higher  critic  "  in  support  of  their  contention  ;  but 
they  quote  him  at  the  wrong  time.  They  quote  him 
in  support  of  the  statement  that  Genesis  and  the  rest 
of  the  Pentateuch  were  written  by  the  same  author ; 
but,  as  will  presently  appear,  a  scholarly  Princeton 
professor  has  shown  that  Genesis  was  not  written  by 
Moses.  Their  quotation  is  as  follows  :  "  It  is  con- 
ceded that  Genesis  has  a  common  authorship  with  the 
other  four  books.     So  that  we  must  accept  the  con- 


110  TRIAL  OB   DR.  BRIGGS. 

elusion   that    the   Pentateuch   claims   Moses   as  its 
author.     Scholars  like  Kuenen  freely  admit  this." 
Saving  in  a  previous  sentence  affirmed   that  "A 

nival  pari  of  the  document  is  ascribed  to  Moses,"  and 
that  cw  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers,  and  Deuteronomy 

are  credited  to  him  as  the  medium  through  whom 
God  communicated  them  to  the  people,  when  Israel 

was  in  the  wilderness,  and  when  Aaron  and  Eleazer 
were  high  priests,"  and  having  made  the  above 
statement  regarding  "the  laws  of  all  the  codes,"  and 
the  alleged  concession  regarding  the  authorship  of 
Genesis,  they  proceed,  after  the  manner  of  the  "  con- 
jectural critics,*'  to  reason  as  follows:  — 

"If  tliis  claim  he  not  true,  then  the  Pentateuch  is 
Qeithei  genuine  u<>r  authentic,  and  it  must  be  untrust- 
worthy. It  lli.-  Pentateuch's  claim  of  Mosaic  authorship 
be  false,  And  the  work  originated  piece  by  piece  during 
centuries  after  the  death  of  Moses,  the  document  as  it  has 

Come    <<>    us    is   a  fraud,  and   no   dependence   can   be   placed 

upon  it." 

In  other  words,  although  the  Bible  nowhere  claims 
that  Moses  is  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  they 
guexx  that  lie  was  because  the  Pentateuch  itself  speaks 
of  him  as  a  maker  of  books,  etc.  ;  they  are  strength- 
ened in  this  correct ure  by  the  fact  that  Moses  is  said 
to  have  written  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  ;  they  are  still 
further  encouraged  to  think  that  Moses  wrote  the 
whole  from  the  fact  that  many,  and  a  "  higher  critic  " 
among  the  number,  believe  that  Genesis  has  a  com- 
mon authorship  with  the  other  four  books  ;  therefore, 


FOURTH  AND  FIFTH  CHARGES.  Ill 

if  the  claim  put  forth  in  this  conjecture  be  not  true, 
the  Pentateuch  is  "  a  fraud  "/ 

Verily,  if  this  be  a  fair  specimen  of  the  "higher 
criticism,"  I  for  one  am  not  in  favor  of  it.  Its  pre- 
mises are  too  weak  and  disjointed,  and  its  conclusions 
too  lamely  arrived  at.  It  is  by  means  of  no  such 
halting  logic  that  accurate  scholars  of  any  school 
reach  their  conclusions. 

The  prosecution  themselves  seem  to  feel  that  their 
logic  is  not  as  conclusive  as  it  should  be.  They  sup- 
plement it  by  a  few  additional  sentences  of  inferential 
criticism,  followed  by  another  concession  quoted  from 
the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica  (!)  as  follows  :  "  It  is 
conceded  that  in  the  time  of  Chronicles  Moses  was 
already  taken  to  be  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch 
(Encylopaedia  Britannica,  Pentateuch)."  Whether  the 
writer  of  the  article  quoted  from  is  a  u  higher  critic  " 
or  a  logician  of  another  kind,  is  not  indicated.  The 
prosecution  are  not  yet  satisfied  that  they  have  estab- 
lished their  contention.  They  accordingly  resort  to  tra- 
dition in  the  hope  of  strengthening  their  premises ; 
but  it  will  be  observed  from  the  following  quotation 
that  they  themselves  distrust  this  new  kind  of  evi- 
dence, and  impliedly  confess  its  weakness  by  defend- 
ing it  before  it  is  attacked.  Their  language  is  as 
follows:  "  The  Jewish  people  for  three  thousand  years 
have  given  their  united  testimony  in  behalf  of  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  Christian 
Church  has  always  united  in  that  testimony.  This 
singular  unanimity  of  God's  people  on  this  question 
for  so  manv  centuries  is  of  such  great  value  that  it 


112  TRIAL  OF   DR.  BRIGGS. 

cannot  be  sneered  out  of  court  as  mere  traditionalism. 
Such  a  consensus  is  not  to  be  cast  aside  for  the 
trivial  reason  that  it  does  not  accord  with  the  subjec- 
tive impressions  of  the  higher  critics,  which  impres- 
sions are  those  of  men  as  fallible  as  the  rest  of  us." 

The  next  sentence  is  of  special  interest  in  the  light 
of  the  prosecution's  attempt  at  u  higher  criticism  n  as 
given  above  :  "  Conjectural  criticism  on  the  Pentateuch 
has  not  established  its  claim  to  our  confidence.  For 
not  all  those  who  use  it  attain  to  good  results  when 
working  in  fields  where  the  rest  of  us  can  follow." 

Certainly  the  prosecution  have  not  attained  to  good 
results  in  their  attempt  to  follow,  but  then  they  have 
followed  at  too  great  a  distance.  May  they  yet  be 
found,  side  by  side  with  Dr.  Briggs,  expert  higher 
critics  of  the  evangelical  school. 

The  next  sentence  uttered  by  the  prosecution  ia  an- 
other curious  non  sequitur.  It  is  a  conclusion  with- 
out any  valid  premises  as  its  basis.  —  a  "  thus  *'  in  the 
sense  of  "  therefore  "  which  has  no  proper  affinity  with 
what  precedes.  The  sentence  is  as  follows  :  u  Thus 
Dr.  Briggs  has  misapprehended  completely  the  teach- 
ing of  the  fathers,  reformers,  and  Westminster  divines 
regarding  the  truthfulness  of  the  Bible." 

Why  say  u  thus  "  when  we  have  had  nothing  fur- 
nished us  by  the  prosecution  as  to  the  teaching  of  the 
fathers,  reformers,  and  Westminster  divines  regard- 
ing the  truthfulness  of  the  Bible  as  depending  upon 
the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Book  of 
Isaiah?  —  and  for  the  simple  reason  that  there  is 
nothing    to   furnish.      The    fathers,   reformers,    and 


FOURTH  AND  FIFTH  CHAKGES.  113 

Westminster  divines  taught  no  such  doctrine  as  the 
prosecution  have  attributed  to  them.  Who  has  ever 
taught,  until  now,  that  the  truthfulness  of  the  Bible 
depends  upon  its  human  authorship  ? 

Having  failed  to  establish  their  charge,  or  any  part 
of  it,  thus  far,  they  come  to  their  last  and  main  re- 
liance for  proof,  which  is  substantially  contained  in 
the  first  two  sentences  they  utter  regarding  it,  as 
follows :  "  But  Christ  and  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  give  unqualified  testimony  to  the  Mosaic 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  When  speaking  of 
'  the  law,'  '  the  law  of  Moses,'  '  the  book  of  Moses,' 
and  '  Moses'  writings,'  they  used  those  terms  in  the 
accepted  meaning  of  that  time  as  referring  to  the 
entire  Pentateuch." 

But  it  will  be  observed  that  the  second  of  these  two 
sentences  contradicts  the  first.  "  Christ  and  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament"  in  speaking  of  "the 
law,"  "  the  law  of  Moses,"  "  the  book  of  Moses,"  and 
"  Moses'  writings,"  "  used  these  terms  in  the  accepted 
meaning  of  that  time,"  and  not  as  giving  any  "  testi- 
mony to  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch." 
And  the  same  thing  was  true  of  their  references  to 
"  Isaiah."  This  review  might  close  here,  so  far  as  the 
necessity  for  showing  how  utterly  the  prosecution  have 
failed  to  make  good  their  charge  of  heresy  is  con- 
cerned. But  this  review  seeks  to  point  out,  not  simply 
how  strangely  fallacious  the  positions  of  the  prosecu- 
tion are,  but  how  directly  opposed  they  are  to  those 
held  by  distinguished  Presbyterian  scholars,  occupy- 
ing, up  to  the  time  of  their  decease,  the  most  important 

8 


114  TRIAL  OF  PR   BRIGGS. 

positions  as  religious  teachers  at  the  very  fountain-head 
of  orthodoxy  in  America. 

I  have  now  the  pleasure  of  quoting  the  teaching  of 
another  of  my  late  revered  Princeton  professors,  and 
of  setting  forth  the  fact  that  he  did  not  believe  that 
Moses  was  the  author  of  the  whole  Pentateuch.  What- 
ever may  have  been  his  views  regarding  the  authorship 
of  the  other  four  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  or  the  book 
of  Isaiah,  he  neither  held  nor  taught  that  the  book  of 
Genesis  was  written  by  Moses.  He  taught,  on  the  con- 
trary, that  it  was  not. 

In  a  work  which  bears  upon  the  titlepage  of  its  first 
volume,  "  A  Comparative  History  of  Religions,  by 
James  C.  Moffat,  D.D.,  Professor  in  the  Theological 
Seminary  in  Princeton.  Part  1.  Ancient  Scriptures. 
New  York.  Dodd  &  Mead,  762  Broadway,  1873," 
twenty-eight  pages,  namely,  from  page  73  to  page 
101,  of  vol.  i.  are  devoted  to  proving  that  Moses 
could  not  have  been  the  author  of  the  book  of  Gene- 
sis. Any  reader  will  find  those  twenty-eight  pages  of 
intense  interest  from  any  point  of  view  (as  the  whole 
scholarly  work  is)  ;  and  by  orthodox  Presbyterian 
Bible  students  known  to  the  present  writer  the  argu- 
ment they  contain  has  been  deemed  conclusive  and 
unanswerable.  No  attempt  will  be  made  here  to  re- 
produce the  argument,  but  a  few  quotations  may  be 
taken  from  the  pages  to  confirm  what  has  been  said 
above  regarding  the  fallacy  of  the  positions  taken 
by  the  prosecution  as  to  the  authorship  of  Isaiah 
and  the  Pentateuch,  and  the  truthfulness  of  the 
Bible. 


FOURTH  AND  FIFTH  CHARGES.  115 

Speaking  of  the  Pentateuch,  Dr.  Moffat  says  (page 
73)  :  — 

"That  the  first  of  those  books  in  its  present  form  has 
not  descended  to  us  from  the  time  in  which  any,  even  the 
latest  of  its  events  occurred,  is  capable  of  easy  demon- 
stration ;  and  it  is  just  as  plain  that  it  has  undergone  the 
process  of  modernization,  receiving  the  explanation  of  old 
names  from  more  recent  names,  and  other  additions  from 
editorial  hands  at  some  date  subsequent  to  the  conquest  of 
Canaan." 

On  page  99  the  author  says  :  — 

"Occasionally  we  find  ancient  names  followed  by  the 
explanation  in  the  more  recent  name,  as  if  the  editor  had 
not  felt  free  to  modernize  the  whole  so  far  as  to  leave  out 
the  old  and  substitute  the  new,  but  preferred  to  retain  the 
old,  appending  the  new  by  way  of  explanation.  Thus, 
'Bela  (the  same  is  Zoar) ;  '  Kiriath  Arba  (the  same  is 
Hebron),'  etc.  " 

Speaking  of  the  book  of  Genesis,  on  page  74,  Dr. 
Moffat  says :  — 

"It  is  substantially  pre-Mosaic,  and  bears  distinct 
internal  marks  of  belonging  to  the  same  primitive,  patri- 
archal style  of  society  which  gave  birth  to  the  earliest 
songs  of  the  Veda  and  the  Avesta." 

Then  there  follows  a  statement  which  all  who  hold 
the  opinions  of  the  prosecution  regarding  the  views  of 
Dr.  Briggs  would  do  well  to  ponder,  —  a  series  of  state- 
ments rather,  —  as  follows  :  — 

"  To  the  value  of  Scripture  it  no  way  imports  who  the 
original  writer  was.     The  authority  of  inspiration  is  of 


116  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

equal  weight  without  the  sanction  of  a  human  name.  Can 
it  be  determined  who  penned  the  Book  of  Job,  or  of 
Judges,  or  of  Chronicles,  or  some  of  the  most  beautiful 
and  affecting  of  the  Psalms?  And  are  those  parts  of 
Scripture  of  inferior  weight  because  of  that  unsettled 
question  ?  It  is  not  the  human  authorship  which  confers 
the  authority  of  inspiration;  but,  on  the  contrary,  it  is 
inspiration  which  gives  his  weight  to  any  of  the  prophets, 
no  matter  what  his  name.  The  word  of  God  bears  its 
own  stamp,  and  stands  in  no  need  of  a  voucher  in  any 
name  of  human  renown.  There  is  that  in  it  and  about  it 
whereby  it  is  as  truly  distinguished  from  a  work  of  the 
human  mind  as  a  natural  rose  is  distinguishable  from  an 
artificial  one,  or  a  natural  landscape  from  one  arrayed 
according  to  the  laws  of  art.  As  the  silent  declaration  of 
Deity  rises  from  nature,  so  does  it  from  revelation,  self- 
sustained,  and  sustaining  its  defenders  while  borrowing 
nothing  from  them.  Whether  we  know  or  do  not  know 
the  name  and  genealogy  of  God's  human  instrument  in 
the  case  is,  in  respect  to  Scriptural  authority,  a  matter  of 
very  little  moment.  Where  the  name  of  the  writer  has 
been  recorded,  and  we  know  about  him  in  other  connec- 
tions, it  is  certainly  gratifying  to  feel  that  wTe  have  a  sort 
of  personal  acquaintance  with  one  so  favored  of  God;  and 
yet  it  is  undoubtedly  not  without  design  that  the  names 
of  several  Scripture  writers  have  been  withheld. 

"The  book  of  Genesis  came  down  from  antiquity  to  the 
Hebrew  nation  with  their  laws,  and  through  the  hands  of 
the  lawgiver,  and  was,  therefore,  very  naturally  by  them 
classed  under  the  same  head;  but  the  traditional  classifi- 
cation is  not  entitled  to  forbid  its  full  weight  to  the 
obvious  fact  that  the  book  is  anonymous.  Yet  anonymous 
as  it  is,  no  other  portion  of  Scripture  bears  the  marks  of 


FOURTH  AND   FIFTH  CHARGES.  117 

Divine  inspiration  more  legibly  impressed  upon  it  than 
the  book  of  Genesis.  .  .  .  The  question  of  its  authorship 
is  merely  one  of  literary  history ;  but  under  that  head  a 
question  of  no  common  interest.    .    .    . 

"The  very  latest  event  mentioned  in  Genesis  had 
occurred,  at  the  shortest  estimate,  more  than  half  a 
century  before  Moses  was  born,  and  the  rest  of  its  human 
history  covers  a  period  extending  to  more  than  two  thou- 
sand years  of  a  prior  antiquity,  —  the  earlier  parts  of  it 
standing  in  relation  to  Moses,  chronologically,  as  the 
times  of  Homer  and  Hesiod  and  Thales  stand  to  ours. 
It  is  clear  that  he  could  not  have  been  the  human  author 
of  such  a  history  by  any  natural  means. 

"The  book  could  have  come  to  his  hands  in  only  one 
of  four  ways :  either  the  whole  was  revealed  to  him  super- 
naturally;  or  its  materials  came  down  to  him  on  the 
stream  of  tradition ;  or  they  were  kept  in  detached  records 
—  written  monuments  of  one  kind  or  another  —  from 
which  he  composed  the  work;  or  finalty,  the  whole  is 
an  historical  series,  preserved  in  the  usual  historical  way, 
and  existing  in  its  original  historical  integrity." 

By  a  thorough  and  scholarly  examination  of  the 
whole  subject  Dr.  Moffat  reaches  the  following 
conclusions  :  — ■ 

"Whoever  were  the  penmen  of  it,  the  book  of  Genesis 
was  composed  after  the  manner  of  all  the  rest  of  Scripture, 
by  successive  additions  of  book  to  book"  (page  97"). 

"It  is  the  collection  in  chronological  order  of  the 
ancient  books  themselves,  without  further  trace  of  edi- 
torial work  than  that  of  modernizing  the  diction  and 
prefixing  the  conjunction  in  some  cases,  by  way  of  link- 
ing the  consecutive  books  together  "  (page  92). 


118  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIO 

"The  primal  epoch  of  revelation  to  which  it  pertains 
was    separated   from    its    successor   by   a   long   period   of 
degeneracy;  and  a  similar  degeneracy  intervened 
the  close  of  the  revelations  belonging  to  the  Mosaic  e\ 
and  those   which   opened  the   Christian.      In  both   tl 
intervening  periods  the  written  Word  kept  the  spirit  of 
the  Church  alive''*  (page  97;. 

'•In  what  we  call  the  book  of  .  them  we 

the  Bible  of  the  patriarchal  Church, — the  Bible  of  the 
Church  before  Moses,  containing  literary  productions  from 
the  earliest  ages  of  our  race,  and  the  only  extant  historical 
authorities  of  the  first  two  thousand  years  ""  fpage  99;. 

In  the  course  of  his  discussion  of  this  most  inter- 
esting question  Dr.  Moffat  meets  and  easily  di- 
the   statement    upon   which   the    prosecution    finally 
relied  for  proof  of  their   charge    that   Dr.   Briggs  is 
guilty  of  heresy  in  teaching  that  Moses  is    not 
author  of  the  Pentateuch,  nor  Isaiah  of  half  the  book 
that  bears  his  name.     The  reliance  of  the  prosecution 
was  upon  the  fact  that  Christ  and  the  writers  of 
New  Testament  speak    of   *;  the  law  of  Moses/'  and 
quote  from  it  in  connection  with  the  name  of  Mc 
and  from  the  book  that  bears  Isaiah's  name  as  if  it 
might  all  have  been  written  by  him.     The  principle 
in  both  these  cases  is  the  same,  and  has  been  fully 
explained  by  Dr.  Moffat  as  follows :  — 

"In  the  gospel  according  to  Luke,  xxiv.  27,  we  find  it 
said  of  the  Saviour  that,  ;  beginning  from  Moses  and  from 
all  the  prophets,  he  expounded  unto  them  in  all  the  Scrip- 
tures the  things  concerning  Himself,*  and  hence  might 
infer  a  final  settlement    of  this    question.       Because,    if 


FOURTH  AND  FIFTH  CHARGES.  119 

there  are  tilings  concerning  the  Messiah  in  Genesis,  as 
we  are  told  there  are,  it  must  be  comprehended  under  the 
name  of  Moses,  from  whom,  together  with  all  the  prophets, 
He  began  His  exposition.  But  in  order  to  that  conclusion 
we  must  show  that  the  words  ' Moses,'  'the  prophets  '  and 
'the  Scriptures,'  are  designations  of  authorship,  and  not 
mere  classification  of  the  sacred  books.  Upon  attempt- 
ing, however,  to  make  this  point  good,  from  parallel  pas- 
sages, and  passages  of  direct  reference  or  quotation,  we  find 
everything  going  to  determine  the  opposite.  In  the  forty- 
fourth  verse  of  the  same  chapter  of  Luke,  '  the  law  of  Moses, 
the  prophets,  and  the  Psalms '  is  obviously  a  classification 
of  the  books  of  Old  Testament  Scripture.  So  in  Matt. 
v.  17  ;  vii.  12,  and  xxii.  40,  and  Luke  xvi.  16  the  law 
and  the  prophets  are  used  as  general  terms  comprehending 
all  Scripture.  In  these  last  mentioned  instances  it  is 
clear  that  the  words  Maw  and  the  prophets'  correspond 
respectively  to  '  Moses  and  the  prophets  '  in  the  first.  The 
name  of  Moses,  as  the  writer  of  the  law,  is  used  in  a  sense 
synonymous  with  '  law,'  according  to  a  custom  equally  prev- 
alent in  our  own  language.  And  then  either  or  both  of 
them  are  used  as  terms  whereby  to  designate  a  class  of 
sacred  books  in  which  the  law  was  the  principal  part. 
That  group  of  books  contained  also  history,  poetry,  and 
much  else  besides  law,  but  the  law  was  its  great  feature 
and  furnished  a  convenient  designation  for  the  whole, 
which  every  Hebrew  rightly  understood  when  so  used. 
It  was  not,  however,  always  confined  to  the  Pentateuch. 
Jesus  Himself  sometimes  called  the  whole  body  of  Old 
Testament  Scripture  the  law  (John  x.  34  ;  xv.  25). 
Sometimes  the  two  heads,  the  law  and  the  prophets,  were 
used  as  comprehensive  of  the  whole,  and  sometimes  three 
classes  were  made,   '  the  law, '  or  '  Moses,'  or  '  the  law  of 


120  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

Moses,'  being  the  name  given  to  the  first, '  the  prophets' 
designating  the  second,  and  'the  Psalms  '  the  third.  It  is 
clear  that  these  names,  so  far  from  determining  author- 
ship, do  just  the  very  opposite,  by  grouping  together  under 
the  same  head  books  of  acknowledgedly  different  authors, 
and  of  dates  separate  by  hundreds  of  years.  Thus,  as  Job, 
Ecclesiastes,  and  the  Song  of  Solomon  were  classed  with 
the  Psalms,  although  certainly  not  Psalms,  and  Kings 
with  the  prophets  though  really  historical,  so  Genesis  was 
classed  with  the  law  of  Moses,  although  not  belonging  to 
the  law. 

"  Genesis  being  thus  arranged  under  the  general  head 
of  the  law  by  the  Jews,  the  Saviour,  by  adopting,  confirmed 
the  classification  ;  but  did  not  thereby  affirm  anything 
else  than  that  the  classification  was  a  proper  one;  just  as 
much,  and  no  more,  as  he  affirmed  of  the  other  heads  by 
adopting  them  "  (pp.  81-83). 

The  above  argument  by  Dr.  Moffat  is  precisely  the 
line  of  argument  pursued  by  Dr.  Briggs,  only  that  he 
applied  it  to  Isaiah  as  well  as  to  the  Pentateuch. 

At  page  170  of  his  first  volume  of  "  Systematic 
Theology  "  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  says,  "  The  language 
of  the  Bible  is  the  language  of  common  life,  and  the 
language  of  common  life  is  founded  upon  apparent 
and  not  upon  scientific  truth." 

Dr.  Briggs  showed  that  Christ  and  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers,  using  the  language  of  common  life 
spoke  of  the  Pentateuch  as  "the  law  of  Moses"  or 
"  Moses,"  and  the  book  called  the  book  of  Isaiah  as 
"  Isaiah,"  just  as  we  in  common  language  call  the 
book  of  Ruth   "Ruth,"  or  the  book  of  Job  "Job." 


FOURTH  AND  FIFTH  CHARGES.  121 

He  also  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  the  fourth 
chapter  of  "  Hebrews  "  the  inspired  Word  seems  to 
speak  of  the  book  of  Psalms  under  the  name  of 
"  David  "  although  it  is  well  known  that  many  of  the 
Psalms  were  not  written  by  David. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  many  of  the  Jews,  whose 
language  Jesus  used,  understood  it  in  some  cases  as 
meaning  something  more  than  Jesus  understood  it  to 
mean.  There  were  disputes  among  themselves  over 
many  literary  and  technical  questions.  But  Jesus 
did  not  enter  the  arena  of  literary  dispute  with  them, 
and  correct  all  their  minor  errors.  He  had  a  greater 
work  to  do,  and  must  leave  many  errors  until  the 
time  of  the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit,  who,  when  He 
should  come,  would  guide  into  all  the  truth.  But 
now  that  we  live  in  the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit,  and 
He,  by  guiding  His  servants  in  their  study  of  the 
Word  of  God,  would  correct  every  error,  there  are  not 
a  few  who  prefer  to  cling  to  the  traditions  of  the 
fathers  and  reject  the  Spirit's  teaching. 

Our  Confession  teaches,  chapter  i.,  section  x., 
that  "  the  Supreme  Judge,  by  which  all  controversies 
are  to  be  determined,  and  all  decrees  of  councils, 
opinions  of  ancient  writers,  doctrines  of  men,  and 
private  spirits  are  to  be  examined,  and  in  whose 
sentence  we  are  to  rest,  can  be  no  other  but  the 
Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the  Scripture."  But  when 
a  Christian  scholar,  who  believes  this  doctrine,  draws 
forth  from  the  treasury  of  the  Word  things  new  and 
old  for  the  correction  of  error  and  the  building  up  of 
men  in  the  most  holy  faith,  there  are  some  who  up- 


122  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

braid  him  in  such  language  as  the  following :  "  Dr. 
Briggs  says,  '  Jesus  was  not  bound  to  correct  all  the 
errors  of  His  contemporaries.'  Well,  if  that  is  true, 
then  it  is  a  great  pity  that  Dr.  Briggs  did  not  follow 
so  good  an  example,  so  as  not  to  disturb  the  peace  of 
a  great  church."  Had  Dr.  Lampe  remembered  the 
words,  "  I  came  not  to  send  peace,  but  a  sword,"  or 
had  he  observed  that  his  unhappy  remark  might  be 
seen  to  have  a  more  pointed  application  to  the  prose- 
cution than  to  Dr.  Briggs,  he  would  probably  not  have 
allowed  himself  to  utter  it. 

But  what  has  become  of  the  two  quotations  from 
the  Confession  of  Faith  which  were  the  specifications 
by  which  the  prosecution  were  to  prove  their  charge  ? 
They  have  been  captured  by  Dr.  Briggs  and  turned 
directly  against  the  prosecution. 

"It  is  not  sufficient,"  said  Dr.  Briggs,  "for  the  prose- 
cution to  claim  that  a  doctrine  is  an  essential  doctrine  of 
the  Westminster  standards.  They  may  claim  anything 
and  everything.  It  is  necessary  for  them  to  prove  their 
claim.  The  court  have  doubtless  noticed  that  the  prose- 
cution have  made  no  attempt  in  their  argument  to  present 
such  proof.  They  have  made  no  use  of  these  passages  of 
our  Confession  whatever.  On  this  account  I  ask  you  to  rule 
charges  four  and  five  out  of  court  as  entirely  destitute  of 
proof.  But  I  shall  find  it  convenient  to  use  these  passages 
of  the  Confession  myself,  and  turn  them  against  the 
prosecutors.  I  admit  that  two  doctrines  of  our  standards 
are  i  that  the  Holy  Scripture  evidences  itself  to  be  the 
Word  of  God  by  the  consent  of  all  its  parts,'  and  '  The 
infallible  rule  of  interpretation  of  Scripture  is  Scripture 
itself.'" 


FOURTH  AXD  FIFTH  CHARGES.  123 

Dr.  Briggs  then  took  these  two  Confessional  state- 
ments that  had  been  relied  upon  by  the  prosecution 
to  prove  their  charges,  and  showed  that  it  was  by 
making  Scripture  interpret  itself,  and  by  ascertaining 
"  the  consent  of  all  its  parts,"  that  it  had  been  found 
that  Moses  was  not  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch, 
nor  Isaiah  the  author  of  half  the  book  that  bears  his 
name.  The  tables  were  thus  completely  turned  upon 
the  prosecution.  To  use  a  classic  phrase  that  was 
used  in  the  court,  they  were  "  hoisted  with  their 
own  petard."  But  the  court  did  not  so  decide.  Dr. 
Briggs  then  closed  his  argument  on  these  two  charges 
as  follows  :  — 

••Let  me  sum  up  my  arguments  on  the  charges  four 
and  five. 

••  1.  There  is  no  lawful  bridge  by  which  these  specifica- 
tions, '  that  Moses  is  not  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  and 
that  Isaiah  is  not  the  author  of  half  of  the  book  that  bears 
his  name,'  can  be  brought  under  the  charges.  Therefore 
there  is  no  relevancy  in  the  specifications,  —  they  cannot 
be  accounted  as  valid. 

"2.  The  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  nowhere 
states  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch,  or  that  Isaiah 
wrote  the  whole  of  the  book  that  bears  his  name.  There- 
fore there  can  be  no  lawful  case  against  me  in  the 
Presbyterian    Church. 

"3.  The  testimony  of  Holy  Scripture  in  the  passages 
adduced  does  not  show  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch 
and  that  Isaiah  wrote  the  book  that  bears  his  name. 
Therefore  my  statements  are  not  in  conflict  with  Holy 
Scripture,  and  there  is  no  valid  case  against  me  on  the 
ground  of  Holy  Scripture. 


124  TRIAL  OF  DR  BRIGG& 

11  A.    Holy  Scripture  mail  idenl  thai   Motet  did 

not  write  the  Pentateuch,  and  that  fsaiah  did  not  write 

half  of   the   book   that    bean  big  name.     Therefore  my 

<•   true,  and  the  prosecution  are   in   conflict 

with  Holy  Scriptui 

These  two  charges,  which  are  thus  soon  to  hare 
absolutely  do  support  from  either  the  Scriptures  or 
the  Confession  of  Faith,  were  regarded  by  the  pr< 
cution  as  the  gravest  of  all  the  charges  they  bad 
framed.  They  seemed  to  be  Looked  upon  as  the  irery 
key  of  their  position.  Here  are  the  words  with  which 
Dr.  Lampe,  on  behalf  of  the  prosecution,  closed  bis 
j        jitation  of  those  charges:  — 

"This  teaching  is  far  more  dangerous  than  affirming 
the  Scripture  to  be  in  error  in  matters  of  minor  impor- 
tance; it  tends  to  a  total  destruction  of  faith  in  the 
Bible.      It  has  done  that  already  for  many.      It  is  entirely 

at  variance   with    the   Confessional    doctrine    of    the    Holy 
Scripture* " 

None  of  all  the  charges  stirred  individual  com- 
missioners as  did  these  two.  The  only  case,  so  fai- 
ns the  present  writer  can  remember,  in  which  any 
member  of  the  court  needed  to  be  called  to  order  dur- 
ing the  trial  was  in  connection  with  these  charges. 
This  was  in  the  case  of  a  lay  commissioner  w.ho 
took  an  active  part  in  ?j  1 1  the  proceedings,  and  whose 
opinions  and   ntteran  med  to  have  weight  with 

many    in    the    court.       In    expressing    his    views    on 
these  charges  lie  was  deeply  stirred,  and  with  earnest 


FOURTH  AND  FIFTH  CHARGES.  125 

gesture  and  elevated  voice  began  to  relate  an  imagi- 
nary colloquy  between  Dr.  Briggs  and  God,  in  which 
he  represented  "  God  Almighty  "  as  declaring  to 
Dr.  Briggs  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch,  and 
Dr.  Briggs  as  replying  that  Moses  did  not.  But  at 
this  point  he  was  called  to  order  in  the  most  quiet 
and  considerate  way  by  a  venerable  father  in  the 
Assembly,  —  the  Rev.  Dr.  Storrs. 

The  respect  that  was  entertained  for  the  opinions 
of  the  commissioner  referred  to  may  be  judged  from 
the  fact  that  at  the  opening  of  the  Assembly  he  had 
been  made  a  member  of  the  judicial  committee,  and 
at  the  close  of  the  trial  he  was  made  a  member  of  the 
committee  that  was  appointed  to  prepare  the  sentence 
to  be  passed  upon  Dr.  Briggs. 

It  is  possible  that  Dr.  Briggs  may  not  be  correct 
in  all  his  conclusions  regarding  the  authorship  of 
parts  of  the  Pentateuch  and  parts  of  the  book  of 
Isaiah.  He  may  have  made  mistakes,  such  as  all 
students  are  liable  at  times  to  make,  or  such  as  any 
minister  may  sometimes  make  in  his  interpretation 
of  the  text  from  which  he  preaches ;  but  that  he  has 
fallen  into  any  vital  error,  or  that  he  has  cast  any 
slight  upon  any  part  of  the  inspired  Word,  either  in 
the  course  of  his  study  or  in  the  conclusions  he  has 
reached,  is  the  reverse  of  what  has  been  proved  by 
all  the  records  of  the  case. 

Instead  of  aiming*  at  weakeninc;  either  Divine 
authority  or  man's  loyalty  thereto,  all  his  teaching 
claims  for  its  aim  the  promotion  of  a  higher  Chris- 


126  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BEIGGS. 

tian  life  through  a  clearer  comprehension  of  the  full 
meaning  of  the  inspired  Word  of  God;  or,  to  use 
his  own  language,  through  learning  to  see  "  the  mag- 
nificent unity  of  the  whole  Bible,  to  capture  all  lis 
sacred  treasures,  and  to  enjoy  all  its  heavenly 
glories." 


SIXTH  CHARGE.  127 


CHAPTER   IX. 

SIXTH    CHARGE  :     PROGRESSIVE   SANCTIFICATION    AFTER 
DEATH. 

WE  come  now  to  the  last  of  the  six  charges  that 
were  sustained  by  the  General  Assembly.  It 
accuses  Dr.  Briggs  of  teaching  the  doctrine  of  pro- 
gressive sanctification  after  death,  and  claims  that 
this  is  heresy.  There  is  nothing  new  about  this 
doctrine  except,  perhaps,  the  name.  With  every- 
thing else  that  is  essentially  connected  with  it,  every 
student  of  historical  theology  is  familiar.  It  is  a 
doctrine  which  has  been  held  by  many  of  the  most 
saintly  and  orthodox  divines  for  centuries.  In  fact, 
if  we  leave  the  letter  of  the  doctrine  out  of  view  and 
take  account  only  of  its  spirit,  it  is  the  doctrine  held 
by  all  orthodox  Christians.  They  do  not  believe 
that  the  soul  either  dies  or  sleeps ;  nor  do  they 
believe  the  patristic  doctrine  that  between  death  and 
the  resurrection  "  the  soul  is  in  a  dreamy,  semi-con- 
scious state,  neither  happy  nor  miserable,  awaiting 
the  resurrection  of  the  body."  They  do  not  believe 
that  the  soul  enters  "  a  state  of  suffering,"  "  a  purga- 
tory," there  to  be  cleansed  from  sin  before  it  can 
enter  heaven ;  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  do  Presby- 
terians believe  that  the  souls  of  believers  attain  to 


128  TRIAL   OF   DR.  BRIG 

the  highest  blessedness  in  the  state  between  death 
and  the  resurrection.  They  believe  that  at  death 
believers  pass  into  the  immediate  presence  of  the 
Lord  Jesus,  and  that  they  are  made  perfect  in  holi- 
ness in  the  sense  of  being  wholly  freed  from  sin,  but 
that  some  higher  degree  of  blessedness  awaits  them 
after  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  the  final 
judgment.  To  use  the  language  of  the  Westmim 
standards  (Larger  Catechism,  Question  8  be- 

lieve that  — 

"The    communion    in    glory    with    Christ,    which    the 
members  of  the  invisible  Church  enjoy  immediately  after 
death,   is  in  that  their  souls  are  then    made    perfect    in 
holiness,    and    are    received    into    the     highest     he&l 
where  they  behold  the  face  of  God  in  light  and  g 
waiting  for  the  full  redemption  of  their   bodies,   which 
even  in    death    continue    united   to    Christ,   and    rest    in 
their  graves  as  in  their  beds  till  at  the  last  day 
again  united  to  their  souls." 

The    Presbyterian   Church   holds    that    after    the 
resurrection  and    at   the   day  of  judgment   believers 
shall  enter  upon  a  still  more  blessed  state  than  tl 
as  is  stated   in  their  standards  (Larger    Catechism, 
Question  ! 

44  At  the  day  of  judgment,  the  righteous,  being  caught 
up  to  Christ  in  the  clouds,  shall  be  set  on  His  right  hand, 
and  there,  openly  acknowledged  and  acquitted,  shall  join 
with  Him  in  the  judging  of  reprobate  angels  and  men, 
and  shall  be  received  into  heaven,  where  they  shall  be 
fully  and  forever  freed  from  all  sin  and  misery,  filled 
with   inconceivable  joys,  made  perfectly  holy  and  happy 


SIXTH  CHARGE.  129 

both  in  bocty  and  soul,  in  the  company  of  innumerable 
saints  and  holy  angels,  but  especially  in  the  immediate 
vision  and  fruition  of  God  the  Father,  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  all  eternity.  And  this 
is  the  perfect  and  full  communion  which  the  members  of 
the  invisible  Church  shall  enjoy  with  Christ  in  glory,  at 
the  resurrection  and  day  of  judgment." 

To  all  these  orthodox  doctrines  Dr.  Briggs  sub- 
scribes. Whatever  else  he  believes  is  not  of  such  a 
nature  as  to  prevent  him  from  holding  all  these 
doctrines.  Nor  does  it  conflict  with  any  of  these 
doctrines.  What  he  believes  in  addition  to  all  that 
has  just  been  formally  stated  is  simply  of  an  ex- 
planatory nature.  He  explains  what  the  words  "  the 
souls  of  believers  are  at  their  death  made  perfect  in 
holiness  "  should  be  taken  to  mean.  He  believes  that 
the  clauses  of  our  standards,  as  quoted  above,  which 
speak  of  the  communion  in  glory  with  Christ,  which 
the  members  of  the  invisible  Church  enjoy  immedi- 
ately after  death  are  parallel  clauses,  —  clauses  which 
make  affirmation,  "  not  of  successive  chronological 
events,  but  of  parallel  events :  (1)  '  made  perfect 
in  holiness,'  (2)  <  received  into  the  highest  heavens,' 
(3)  '  behold  the  face  of  God  in  light  and  glory,'  (4) 
'  waiting  for  the  full  redemption  of  their  bodies,'  — 
all  alike  referring  to  the  communion  in  glory  with 
Christ  which  continues  through  this  entire  state 
from  death  to  the  resurrection." 

He  sees  that  being  made  perfect  in  holiness,  ac- 
cording to  this  view,  would  not  be  one  instantaneous 
act,  but  would  go  on  through  the  whole  period  be- 

9 


130  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

twccn  death  and  the  resurrection.  In  thus  being  a 
continuous  process,  he  sees  that  it  would  resemble  the 
process  of  sanctification  as  it  is  taught  in  the  Word 
of  God  and  set  forth  in  the  standards  of  the  Church. 
He  has,  therefore,  called  it  sanctification.  He  is 
confirmed  in  this  view  by  observing  that  the  stand- 
ards teach  that  the  communion  in  glory  which  the 
members  of  the  invisible  Church  have  with  Christ 
pertains  to  three  stages  or  states  of  existence, 
namely :  "  this  life,"  "  at  death,"  or  "  immediately 
after  death,"  and  "  at  the  resurrection  and  final 
judgment."  He  further  observes  that  this  commun- 
ion is  not,  in  other  cases,  limited  to  one  instant  of 
time,  —  that  "  in  this  life  "  means  during  this  life 
from  the  moment  of  regeneration  onward ;  that  "  at 
the  resurrection  and  day  of  judgment"  must  mean 
beginning  at  the  resurrection  and  day  of  judgment ; 
and,  therefore,  that  "  at  death,"  or  "  immediately  after 
death,"  must  mean  beginning  at,  or  immediately  after, 
death.  As  elsewhere  explained  in  his  argument,  Dr. 
Briggs  understands  this  to  mean  that  at  the  moment 
of  death  there  will  be  "  a  transformation  ; "  which  he 
likens  to  "  the  springing  forth  of  the  blossom  in  the 
springtime  after  a  long  winter's  secret  preparation," 
"the  springing  of  a  new  life."  He  adds  this  dec- 
laration ;  "  I  firmly  believe  that  then  [in  the  moment 
of  death]  there  will  be  a  transformation  greater  than 
any  that  is  possible  in  this  life."  He  says  some  may 
call  this  sanctification,  —  meaning  perfect  sanctifi- 
cation ;  they  may  call  it  being  "  made  perfect  in 
holiness ; "  but  he  regards  this  as  a  very  meagre  and 


SIXTH  CHARGE.  131 

inadequate  conception  of  the  sanctification  taught  in 
the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the  Westminster  Confession. 
He  quotes  the  language  of  the  Confession  to  show  that 
it  is  not  merely  cleansing  from  sin  and  rising  to  a 
higher  grade  of  Christian  life  and  experience,  "  it  is 
being  more  and  more  strengthened  in  all  Christian 
graces,  to  the  practice  of  true  holiness,"  and  this 
requires  duration ;  it  is  "  sanctification  throughout 
the  whole  man  ; "  and  the  proof-text  cited  by  the 
Confession  in  support  of  this  doctrine  is  (1  Thess. 
v.  23)  :  "  And  T  pray  God  your  whole  spirit  and  soul 
and  body  be  preserved  blameless  unto  the  coming  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ," — thus  showing  that  before 
sanctification  can  bo  perfect  the  resurrection  body 
must  have  been  received,  and  the  second  advent  of 
Christ  must  have  taken  place.  But  it  is  unnecessary 
to  review  the  whole  argument  by  which  Dr.  Briggs 
supports  his  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  progressive 
sanctification.  All  that  is  necessary  is  to  show  the 
position  he  holds,  preparatory  to  showing  that  this 
position  is  not  only  not  contrary  to  the  teaching  either 
of  the  Bible  or  the  Confession,  but  is  regarded  by 
many  saintly  and  orthodox  divines  as  the  proper 
interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  standards 
on  this  question ;  and  it  is  also  to  be  regarded  as 
substantially  the  orthodox  doctrine,  judging  by  the 
opinions  and  teaching  of  the  man  whose  volumes  on 
Systematic  Theology  are  commonly  regarded,  in 
America  at  least,  as  the  best  exposition  of  Presby- 
terian doctrine  anywhere  to  be  found. 

Dr.  Charles  Hodge,  in  the  third  volume  of  his  "  Sys- 


132  TRIAL  OF   DB   BBIGG8. 

tematic  Theology  "  (page  724), opens  his  discussion  of 

the  doctrine  of  the  intermediate  state  as  follows: 

"As  all  Christians  believe  in  the  resurrection  of  the 
body  and  a  future  judgment,  they  all  believe  in  an  inter- 
mediate state.  That  is,  they  believe  that  there  is  a  .state 
istence  which  intervenes  between  death  and  the  resur- 
rection; and  that  the  condition  of  the  departed  during  that 
interval  is,  in  some  respects,  different  from  that  which  it 
is  to  be  subsequent  to  that  event.  It  is  not,  therefore,  as 
to  the  fact  of  an  intermediate  state,  but  as  to  its  nature, 
that  diversity  of  opinion  exists  among  Christians. 

"The  common  Protestant  doctrine  on  this  subject  is 
that  'the  souls  of  believers  are,  at  their  death,  made-  per- 
fect in  holiness,  and  do  imniediately  pass  into  glory;  and 
their  bodies,  being  still  united  to  Christ,  do  rest  in  their 
es  till  the  resurrection. '  According  to  this  view  the 
intermediate  tar  as  believers  are  concerned,  is  one 

of  perfect  freedom  from  sin  and  suffering,  and  of  great 
exaltation  and  blessedness.  This  is  perfectly  consistent 
with  the  belief  that  after  the  second  coming  of  Christ,  and 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  the  state  of  the  soul  will  be 
still  more  exalted  and  blessed." 

This  is  by  no  means  all  that  there  is  to  be  quoted 
from  Dr.  1  lodge  as  representing  his  views  on  the  ques- 
tion new  under  discussion.  But  before  quoting  further 
from  his  writings,  1  will  relate  an  incident  which 
occurred  at  Princeton  somewhat  more  than  twenty 
years  ago.  Two  theological  students,  in  dismissing 
this  very  question,  came  upon  a  difficulty  neither  of 
them  could  settle  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  other. 
Their  difficulty  was.  How   are   the    souls   of   believers 


SIXTH   CHARGE.  133 

made  perfect  in  holiness  at  death  ?  Is  it  by  a  mys- 
terious operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  like  the  act  of  re- 
generation, or  is  it  by  means  of  the  Word  in  some  form 
in  accordance  with  Our  Lord's  intercessory  prayer, 
"  Sanctify  them  through  Thy  truth ;  Thy  word  is 
truth  "  ?  The  two  students  agreed  to  refer  the  matter 
to  the  venerable  Dr.  Hodge ;  so  at  the  close  of  the 
next  lecture  in  his  class-room  they  stepped  forward  to 
his  desk.  No  sooner  was  the  question  propounded 
than  the  venerable  teacher,  with  his  gold  spectacles 
resting  above  his  brow,  benevolence  beaming  on  his 
strong  yet  tender  countenance,  and  the  simplicity  of 
a  child  in  his  speech,  answered,  "  Oh,  bathe  a  soul  in 
the  light  of  heaven  and  it  will  become  perfect  in  holi- 
ness in  a  very  short  time!"  These  were  his  exact 
words.  They  have  often  been  related  since,  but  I 
believe  were  never  before  put  on  record.  Other  words 
were  spoken,  but  what  they  were  is  not  remembered. 
But  this  much  is  certain :  the  tenor  of  them,  together 
with  the  above  utterance,  led  the  present  writer  to 
conclude  that  the  sanctification  of  believers  when  they 
pass  into  the  presence  of  Christ  is  by  means  of  The 
Word  ;  that  it  is  through  beholding  Jesus  and  enjoy- 
ing His  presence  that  we  become  "  like  Him."  Is  not 
this  what  was  meant  by  being  "  bathed  in  the  light  of 
heaven  ?"  "  The  Lamb  is  the  Light  thereof."  What 
the  now  sainted  theologian  meant  by  "  in  a  very  short 
time  "  I  do  not  profess  to  know.  But  I  do  know  that 
I  have  heard  him  guarding  us  against  reasoning  about 
eternity  as  we  would  reason  about  time,  —  measuring 
out  its  hours  as  we  measure  the  hours  of  one  of  earth's 


134  TRIAL   OF   DR.  BRIGGS. 

days,  forgetting  that  eternal  duration  is  a  subject  we 
do  not  as  yet  understand,  and  that  u  one  day  is  with 
the  Lord  as  a  thousand  years,  and  a  thousand  years  as 
one  day."  ^tay  it  not  be  that  all  our  reasoning  about 
either   the   instantaneousness    or   progree  -    of 

being  made  perfect  in  holiness  after  death  may  only 
betray  to  celestial  intelligences  our  ignorance  of  things 
unseen  and  eternal,  at  which  we  may  at  pre* 
"  look,"  indeed,  but  concerning  which  we  have  b 
furnished  with  but  few  data  out  of  which  to  manufac- 
ture logical  syllogisms  ?  The  Westminster  divines 
were  no  doubt  wisely  guided  in  so  framing  their  state- 
ments of  doctrine  upon  this  question,  which  pertains 
rather  to  the  heart  and  soul  than  to  the  head,  that 
they  may  be  understood  variously.  One  child  of  God 
may  take  the  statements  of  the  Larger  Catechism 
regarding  the  Communion  which  believers  have  with 
Christ  at  death  to  imply  an  instantaneous  act  of  sancti- 
fication  ;  another  may  take  them  to  imply  a  prog 
change  "  from  glory  to  glory,  even  as  by  the  Spirit  of 
the  Lord."  It  is  an  interesting  fact  in  this  connec- 
tion that  the  first  and  second  clauses  in  the  answer  of 
the  question  on  this  subject  in  the  Shorter  Catechism 
may  be  regarded  as  interchangeable.  Instead  of  say- 
ing "The  souls  of  believers  are  at  their  death  made 
perfect  in  holiness,  and  do  immediately  pass  into  glory, 
and  their  bodies,  being  still  united  to  Christ,  do 
in  their  graves  till  the  resurrection,"  the  answer 
might  have  read  :  M  The  souls  of  believers  at  their 
death  do  immediately  pass  into  glory  and  are  made 
perfect  in  holiness,  and  their  bodies,  being  still  united 


SIXTH  CHARGE.  135 

to  Christ,  do  rest  in  their  graves  till  the  resurrection." 
If  it  be  true  that  it  is  by  being  bathed  in  the  light  or 
glory  of  heaven  that  perfection  in  holiness  comes, 
then  the  latter  would  be  the  more  natural  order.  But, 
as  we  have  already  seen,  this  is  not  a  subject  upon 
which  mortals  may  dogmatize.  It  is  a  question  upon 
which  orthodox  leaders  in  all  Protestant  churches 
have  always  allowed  great  liberty  of  individual  opin- 
ion, so  long  as  no  violence  is  done  to  positive  state- 
ments in  the  Word  of  God  —  if  there  are  any  such 
statements  bearing  directly  upon  this  doctrine.  We 
know  that  for  the  believer  to  depart  is  to  be  with 
Christ ;  to  be  absent  from  the  body  is  to  be  present 
with  the  Lord  ;  that  the  soul  of  the  penitent  thief  went 
direct  from  the  cross  to  Paradise.  But,  as  Dr.  Briggs 
has  pointed  out,  only  one  proof-text  is  cited  in  support 
of  the  Confessional  statement  that  the  souls  of  believers 
are  at  their  death  made  perfect  in  holiness,  and  even 
that  one  text  is  not  a  direct  statement  of  the  doctrine. 
In  the  opinion  of  many —  and  among  them  such  divines 
and  scholars  as  Calvin  and  De  Wette  —  "  the  spirits  of 
just  men  made  perfect "  spoken  of  in  that  text  do  not 
refer  to  the  spirits  of  all  believers  immediately  after 
death ;  so  that  the  passage,  in  their  opinion,  teaches 
nothing  regarding  the  doctrine  now  in  question. 

The  boldness  of  the  prosecution,  in  charging  Dr. 
Briggs  with  heresy  for  holding  the  doctrine  of  pro- 
gressive sancti fixation  after  death  is  striking  when 
viewed  in  the  light  of  the  fact  that  John  Calvin  him- 
self, after  whom  the  Presbyterian  system  of  doctrine 
takes  its  name,  held  that  believers,  in  the  intermc- 


136  TRI A  I,  OF   DR.  BTUGGS. 

diate  state  between  death  and  the  resurrection,  are 
"in  the  way  of  advancement."  The  attention  of 
the  Assembly  was  called  to  this  fact  by  Dr.  Briggs, 
who  quoted  Calvin's  views  as  follows:  — 

•  \  i,  however,  tin-  Spirit  is  accustomed  to  speak  in  this 
manner  in  reference  to  the  last  coining  of  Christ,  it  were 
better  to  extend  the  advancement  of  the  grace  of  Christ  to 
the  resurrection  of  the  flesh.  For,  although  those  who 
have  been  freed  from  the  mortal  body  do  no  longer  con- 
tend with  the  Lusts  of  tli.-  flesh,  and  are,  as  the  expression 
is,  beyond  the  reach  of  a  single  dart,  yet  there  will  he  no 
absurdity  in  speaking  of  them  as  in  the  way  of  advance- 
ment, inasmuch  as  they  have  not  yet  reached  the  point  at 
which  they  aspire;  they  do  not  yet  enjoy  the  felicity  and 
glory  which  they  have  hoped  for;  and,  in  fine,  the  day  has 
not   \i't   shone  which  18  to  discover  the  treasures  which  lie 

hid  in  hope.  And,  in  truth,  when  hope  is  treated  of  our 
eyes  must  he  directed  forward  to  a  blessed  resurrection  as 
the  grand  objeel  in  view."     (Calvin  on  Phil.  i.  6.) 

It  is  not  necessary  to  point  out  the  various  ways  in 
which  the  prosecution  have  misunderstood  language 
used  in  connection  with  this  doctrine,  as  they  misun- 
derstood language  used  in  connection  with  the  fore- 
going  doc!  rines;  nor  need  I  point  out  fallacies  in 
their  reasoning,  and  false  inferences  drawn  by  them 
from  Dr.  Griggs'  statement  of  his  views.  I  shall 
close  the  review  of  this  sixth  charge  by  showdng 
that,  in  the  opinion  of  so  conspicuously  orthodox  a 
divine  as  the  late  Dr.  Charles  Hodge,  the  man  who 
holds  the  views  Dr.  Briggs  holds  on  this  subject 
should  not  have  his  orthodoxy  called  in  question. 


SIXTH  CHARGE.  137 

By  turning  to  the  third  volume  of  his  "  Systematic 
Theology,"  pp.  733-743,  it  will  be  found  that  in  the 
opinion  of  Dr.  Hodge  even  those  who  hold  the  patris- 
tic doctrine  of  the  intermediate  state,  as  it  is  com- 
monly set  forth  in  modern  times,  are  in  substantial 
agreement  with  the  strictly  orthodox  view. 

At  one  point  in  his  argument  Dr.  Briggs  said  :  "  Let 
me  read  a  single  question  that  has  been  sent  up  to 
me :  *  Do  you  mean  by  middle  state  a  condition  of 
being,  between  earth  and  heaven,  or  a  condition  of 
heavenly  life  between  the  death  of  the  believer  and 
the  final  judgment  ?'  "  Dr.  Briggs'  prompt  reply  to 
this  question  was  :  "  I  mean  the  latter." 

Dr.  Briggs,  in  common  with  Dr.  Hodge  and  other 
orthodox  theologians,  holds  that  the  "  middle  state  " 
is  not  a  different  place  from  heaven  and  hell,  but 
simply  a  state  of  existence  in  some  respects  differ- 
ent from  that  which  will  be  more  fully  experienced 
after  the  resurrection  and  final  judgment.  In  this  he 
and  other  strictly  orthodox  theologians  differ  from 
those  who  hold  the  patristic  view  commonly  known 
as  the  doctrine  of  "  the  intermediate  state,"  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  doctrine  of  an  intermediate  state, 
as  held  by  the  majority  of  Christians. 

The  patristic  doctrine  of  "  the  intermediate  state  "  is 
modelled  after  the  old  Jewish  belief  in  Sheol.  Speak- 
ing of  the  belief  of  the  early  Christians  regarding 
this  doctrine,  Dr.  Hodge  says  (Systematic  Theology, 
pp.  738-739) : — 

"  As  many  of  the  Jews  therefore  assumed  that  in  Sheol 
there  were  two  departments,  Paradise  and  Gehenna,  the 


138  TRIAL   OF   DR.  BRIGGS. 

one  the  abode  of  the  righteous,  the  other  of  the  wicked, 
so  the  Christians,  in  many  cases,  made  the  same  distinc- 
tion with  regard  to  the  intermediate  state:  la  of 
believers  went  to  Paradise,  the  souls  of  the  wicked  into 
hell.  And  they  often  so  exalted  the  blessedness  of  the 
former  as  to  make  it  a  mere  dispute  about  words  whether 
they  went  to  heaven  or  into  an  intermediate  state.  The 
real  controversy,"  adds  Dr.  Hodge,  "so  far  as  any  ex 
is  not  as  to  whether  there  is  a  state  intermediate  between 
death  and  the  resurrection  in  which  believers  are 
glorious  and  exalted  than  they  are  to  be  after  the  second 
advent  of  Christ,  but  what  is  the  nature  of  thai 

Dr.  Hodge  then  indicates  what  he  means  by  the  dif- 
ference as  to  the  nature  of  the  state,  by  asking  the 
questions:  "Are  believers  after  death  with  Chri 
Do  their  souls  immediately  pass  into  glory  ?  Or,  are 
they  in  a  dreamy,  semi-conscious  state,  neither  happy 
nor  miserable,  awaiting  the  resurrection  of  the  bod 
Dr.  Briggs,  in  common  with  Dr.  Hodge  and  other 
strictly  orthodox  theologians,  answers  the  first  and 
second  of  these  questions  in  the  affirmative,  and  the 
third  in  the  negative. 

But  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Hodge  as  to  the  orthodoxy 
of  Dr.  Briggs'  position  on  this  subject  may  be  learned 
still  more  definitely  from  his  statements  regarding 
the  modern  form  of  the  doctrine  of  "  the  interme- 
diate state  "  on  pp.  741-743  of  his  u  Systematic  The- 
ology," vol.  iii.,  a  few  extracts  from  which  may  now 
be  given  as  follows  :  — 

"  The  common  views  on  this  subject  are  perhaps  fairly 
represented  in  the  elaborate  work  of  the  Honorable  Archi- 


SIXTH  CHARGE.  139 

bald  Campbell,  on  l  Tbe  Doctrine  of  a  Middle  State  between 
Death  and  tlie  Resurrection'  (London,  1721,  p.  44).  He 
thus  sums  up  the  points  which  he  considers  himself  to 
have  proved  to  be  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  of  the  Fath- 
ers, and  of  the  Church  of  England:  — 

"'  First,  that  the  souls  of  the  dead  do  remain  in  an 
intermediate  or  middle  state  between  death  and  the 
resurrection. ' 

"  '  That  the  proper  place  appointed  for  the  abode  of  the 
righteous  during  the  interim  between  death  and  the  resur- 
rection, called  Paradise  or  Abram's  bosom,  is  not  the  high- 
est heavens  where  alone  God  is  present,  fully  to  be  enjoyed, 
but  it  is,  however,  a  very  happy  place,  one  of  the  lower  apart- 
ments or  mansions  of  heaven,  a  place  of  purification  and 
improvement,  of  rest  and  refreshment,  and  of  divine  con- 
templation,—  a  place  whence  our  Blessed  Lord's  humanity 
is  sometimes  to  be  seen,  though  clouded  or  veiled  if  com- 
pared with  the  glory  He  is  to  appear  with  and  be  seen  in 
at  and  after  His  second  coming.  Into  which  middle  state 
and  blessed  place,  as  they  are  carried  by  the  holy  angels, 
whose  happy  fellowship  they  there  enjoy,  so  afterward 
at  the  resurrection,  after  judgment,  they  are  led  into 
the  beatific  vision  by  the  Captain  of  our  salvation,  Jesus 
Christ  Himself,  where  they  shall  see  Him  fully  as  He 
is,  and  there  they  shall  enjoy  God  for  ever  and  ever,  or 
sempiternally.' 

"The  souls  of  the  wicked  at  death  do  not  go  into  hell, 
but  into  a  middle  state,  '  which  state  is  dark,  dismal,  and 
uncomfortable,  without  light,  rest,  or  any  manner  of  re- 
freshment, without  any  company  but  that  of  devils  and 
such  impure  souls  as  themselves  to  converse  with,  and 
where  these  miserable  souls  are  in  dismal  apprehensions 
of  the  deserved  wrath  of  God.' 


140  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

u  'Secondly,  Thai  there  is  do  immediate  judgment  after 
death,  no  trial  on  which  sentence  is  pronounced,  of  nei- 
ther tin'  righteous  nor  the  wicked,  until  Christ's  second 
coming.1  .  .  . 

"  'Thirdly,  That  the  righteous  in  their  happy  middle 
state  do  improve  in  holiness,  and  make  advances  in  per- 
fection, and  yei  they  arc  not,  for  all  that,  carried  out  of 
that  middle  state  into  glory,  or  into  the  beatific  vision, 
until   after   their  resurrection.'" 

(Campbell  also  held  that  prayers  for  the  blessed  dead 
"are  acceptable  to  God  as  being  fruits  of  our  ardent  char- 
ity, and  are  useful  t<»  them  ami  to  US.") 

"'Lastly.  That  this  doctrine  of  an  intermediate  state 
between  death  and  the  resurrection,  as  I  have  proved  it, 
docs  effectually  destroy  the  popish  purgatory,  invocation 
of  the  saints  departed,  popish  penances,  commutations  <»f 
those  penances,  their  indulgences,  and  treasures  of  merits 
purchased  by  supererogation.'  " 

Dr.  Hodge  also  quotes  the  opinion  of  Jeremy  Taylor, 
as  follows :  — 

81  'Paradise  is  distinguished  from  the  heaven  of  the 
blessed,  being  itself  a  receptacle  of  holy  souls,  made  illus- 
trious with  visitation  of  angels,  and  happy  by  being  a 
repository  for  such  spirits,  who  at  the  day  of  judgment 
shall    go    forth    into   eternal    glory.'  " 

"Again  he  says:  'I  have  now  made  it  as  evident  as 
questions   of    this   nature    will   hear,    that    in   the    state    of 

Separation     the   spirits   6f   g 1    men   shall    he   blessed  and 

happy  souls;  they  have  an  antepast  or  taste  of  their  re- 
ward; but,  their  great  reward  itself,  their  crown  of  right- 
eousness, shall  not  he  yet;  that  shall  not  be  until  the  day 
of  judgment.'  " 


SIXTH  CHARGE.  141 

After  making  the  above  quotations  from  devout 
scholars  who  held,  not  the  doctrine  of  an  intermedi- 
ate state  held  by  Dr.  Hodge  and  Dr.  Briggs,  but  the 
doctrine  of  "  the  intermediate  state "  as  a  separate 
place  in  which  there  was  held  to  be  advancement  in 
holiness,  Dr.  Hodge  gives  us  his  opinion  of  the  little 
importance  to  be  attached  to  the  difference  between 
even  such  views  as  these  and  those  known  as  strictly 
orthodox  views,  in  the  following  words :  — 

"It  appears,  therefore,  that  there  is  little  difference 
between  the  advocates  of  an  intermediate  state  and  those 
who  are  regarded  as  rejecting  that  doctrine.  Both  admit, 
(1)  that  the  souls  of  believers  do  at  death  pass  into  a 
state  of  blessedness;  (2)  that  they  remain  in  that  state 
until  the  resurrection;  (3)  that  at  the  second  coming  of 
Christ,  when  the  souls  of  the  righteous  are  to  be  clothed 
with  their  glorified  bodies,  they  will  be  greatly  exalted 
and  raised  to  a  higher  state  of  being.' ' 

If  this  were  Dr.  Hodge's  opinion  regarding  the  mod- 
ern form  of  the  patristic  doctrine,  what  would  he 
have  said  had  he  been  told  that  a  scholarly  Presbyte- 
rian professor  was  condemned  as  a  heretic  for  teach- 
ing that  neither  the  holiness  nor  the  happiness  of  a 
believer  is  in  the  highest  sense  perfect  immediately 
after  death,  but  that  there  is  growth  in  both  until 
the  resurrection  of  the  body  and  the  day  of  judg- 
ment. Judging  from  his  views  as  recorded  above,  he 
would  promptly  have  said  :  "  It  is  a  great  mistake ; 
he  is  in  substantial  agreement  with  all  orthodox 
Christians." 


142  TRIAL  OF   DR.  BBIG 

"What  the  belief  of  the  prosecution  is 

dition  of  the  souls  of  believers  in  the  intermed 

stat-  m  death  and  the  t  all 

clear  from  their  arguments.     Whet.. 

that  having  become  perfect  in  holiness  at  the  mom 

of  death,  they  are  from  that  time  onward  perfect  in 

happiness  also,  and  as  complel  will 

be  after  the  resurrection,  and  that  they  thug  liv 

an  eternally  conservative  and  un; 

from  the  moment  of  death  on  through  -ty; 

ther  they  believe  thai 
having,  in  the  moment  of  death,  attained  the  goal  of 
absolute   perfection,  live  on  in  a  dream;  eon* 

scious  state  of  existence,  waiting  for  the  redem] 
of  the  body,  we  are  nor  toM.     T  would  s< 

to  be  most  in  accord  with  their    '      i.     On 
of  the  prosecution,  Dr.  Birch,  is  on  record  as 
"All  dead  Christians  are  ask 

we  show  the  rest  which  consists  in  th  mind 

and  body."1     I  can;  :;at  Dr.  ally- 

holds  the  heretical  doctric 
but  it  is  quite  possible  that,  if  the 
cution  were   accurately    ascertained  and  formula! 

would  be  found  to  be  a  modified  form  of  the  old 
patristic  doctrine  of  a  drear: 
—  a  doctrine   based    upon  the   old  Jewish   f 
And  why  not?     If  the  opinions  of  the  J      -  for 
three  thousand  years  be  quoted  by  the  pi  ;i  in 

support  of  their  view  of  the  authorship  of  the  P< 
teuch,  why  should  they  not  be  allowed  to  q 
1  '•  ^leriograpber's  I 


SIXTH  CHARGE.  143 

opinion  of  the  Jews  for  over  three  thousand  years  in 
support  of  their  theory  of  the  state  of  the  soul  between 
death  and  the  resurrection  ?  It  is  well  that  the  whole 
of  orthodox  Christendom  has  always  allowed  great 
liberty  of  individual  opinion  upon  this  difficult  ques- 
tion in  eschatology. 


144  TRIAL  OF    DR.  151UGGS. 


ni  x. 

MESSIANIC    PROPHECY 
A  NO  SECOND   PROBATION. 

TIIK  foregoing  six  charges  were  framed  by  the 
Prosecuting  Committee  prior  t<>  the  meeting 
of  the  Portland  Assembly  in  May,  1892.  Having 
received  permission  at  that  assembly  to  amend  the 
charges  within  certain  limits,  the  committee  took  the 
liberty  of  adding  two  new  charges,  interjecting  one 
between  charges  three  and  lour,  and  the  other  between 
charges  five  and  six,  and  changing  the  numbering  of 
the  charges  accordingly,  so  that  four  and  five  of  the 
original  series  became  five  and  six  of  the  amended 
series,  and  number  six  of  the  original  charges  became 
number  eight  of  the  amended  list. 
The  former  of  these  tw<>  new  charges  (number  four 

of  the  amended  series  alleges  that  Dr.  BriggS  teacbes 
a  doctrine  "  which  is  contrary  to  the  essential  doctrine 
of  the  Holy  Scripture  and  of  the  standards  of  the 
Church,  that  God  is  true,  omniscient,  and  unchange- 
able," which  the  prosecution  explain  as  follows:  "In 
the  fourth  of  the  amended  charges,  Dr.  Briggs  is 
Charged  with  teaching  that  many  of  the  Old  Testament 
predictions  have  been  reversed  by  history,  and  that  the 
at  body  of  Messianic  prediction  cannot  be  fulfilled. " 


"THE   REJECTED  CHARGES."  145 

The  latter  of  the  two  new  charges  (number  seven  of 
the  amended  series)  charges  Dr.  Briggs  with  teaching 
that  '-the  processes  of  redemption  extend  to  the  world 
to  come  in  the  case  of  many  who  die  in  sin." 

These  two  charges  were  rejected  by  the  Presbytery 
of  New  York  on  two  grounds:  (1)  because  it  was 
contrary  both  to  the  instructions  of  the  Portland 
Assembly  and  the  law  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
and  not  in  the  interests  of  justice  to  allow  the  com- 
mittee to  amend  the  charges  in  such  a  way  as  to 
change  their  general  nature ;  and  (2)  Because  both 
charges  accused  Dr.  Briggs  of  holding  doctrines  which 
he  utterly  disavowed,  and  repudiated  the  idea  of  ever 
having  taught.  He  had  done  this  before  the  Presby- 
tery of  New  York,  in  presence  of  the  prosecuting 
committee,  prior  to  the  meeting  of  the  Portland 
Assembly,  as  he  stated  to  the  Washington  Assembly, 
as  follows: 

"In  my  response,  November  4,  1891,  I  said,  'Specifica- 
tion seven  alleges  that  Dr.  Briggs  teaches  that  predictive 
prophecy  has  been  reversed  by  history,  and  that  much  of 
it  has  not  been  and  never  can  be  fulfilled.'  This  specifi- 
cation makes  invalid  inferences  and  against  Christian 
courtesy,  and  an  imputation  upon  my  veracity  which  this 
Presbytery  should  not  tolerate. 

"Charge  seven  charges  me  'with  teaching  that  the  pro- 
cesses of  redemption  extend  to  the  world  to  come  in  the 
case  of  many  who  die  in  sin.'  The  prosecution  impute 
this  doctrine  tome  notwithstanding  the  disclaimer  of  such 
teaching  which  has  been  submitted  to  the  Presbytery  on 
two  different  occasions :  — 

10 


146  TRIAL  OF   DR.  BRIGGS. 

"1.  Dr.  George  Alexander  laid  before  the  Presbytery 
on  October  5,  1891,  without  consultation  with  me,  my 
answers  to  the  following  questions  of  the  directors 
of  the  Union  Theological  Seminary:  'Do  you  hold  to 
what  is  commonly  known  as  the  doctrine  of  a  future  pro- 
bation? Do  you  believe  in  purgatory?'  Answer — 'No.' 
'Do  you  believe  that  the  issues  of  this  life  are  final, 
and  that  a  man  who  dies  impenitent  will  have  no  further 
opportunity  of  salvation?'     Answer  —  'Yes.' 

"2.  In  my  response  of  November  4,  1891,  I  said:  'If 
I  had  been  charged  with  teaching  second  probation,  or  any 
probation  whatever  after  death,  1  might  have  pointed  to 
several  of  my  writings  in  which  this  doctrine  is  distinctly 
disclaimed.  If  the  doctrine  of  purgatory  had  been  imputed, 
or  regeneration  after  death,  or  transition  after  death  from 
the  state  of  the  condemned  to  the  state  of  the  justified, 
any  and  all  of  those  could  be  disproved  by  my  writings.' 
I  ask  the  Presbytery,  in  view  of  these  disclaimers,  if  it  is 
just,  if  it  is  honorable,  if  it  is  in  accordance  with  Christian 
courtesy  and  gentlemanly  propriety  for  the  prosecution  to 
make  such  charges  against  me." 

When  the  question  came  up  for  discussion  in  the 
Washington  Assembly,  as  to  whether  the  Presbytery 
of  New  York  was  right  in  rejecting  these  two  charges, 
the  prosecution  presented  much,  if  not  substantially 
all,  of  what  they  had  to  urge  in  support  of  the  charges. 

As  the  charges  themselves  were  not  tried  either 
before  the  Presbytery  or  General  Assembly,  it  would 
perhaps  be  improper  for  this  review  to  enter  fully 
upon  the  consideration  of  their  merits.  All  that 
need  be  done  is  to  show,  from  the  arguments  of  the 


"THE   REJECTED   CHARGES."  147 

prosecution  in  support  of  their  appeal  against  the 
rejection  of  the  charges,  wherein  they  have  fallen 
into  error  and  wholly  misunderstood  the  position  of 
Dr.  Briggs. 

In  the  first  place,  they  have  misunderstood  and 
misapplied  his  language  in  a  way  that  seems  unac- 
countable. 

For  example,  in  proof  of  their  charge  that  Dr. 
Briggs  teaches  "  that  the  processes  of  redemption 
extend  to  the  world  to  come  in  the  case  of  many  who 
die  in  sin,"  the  prosecution  say,  " '  The  processes  of 
redemption,'  he  states,  '  ever  keep  the  race  in  mind. 
The  Bible  tells  us  of  a  race  origin,  a  race  ideal,  and  a 
race  redemption.' "  And  they  mean  this  to  be  taken 
as  indicating  that  Dr.  Briggs  teaches  Universalism  or 
some  such  heresy. 

Now  the  reader  will  observe  that  the  prosecution 
seek  to  condemn  Dr.  Briggs  here  for  stating  a  simple 
fact.  The  Bible  in  speaking  of  redemption  does  always 
keep  the  race  in  mind.  It  tells  us  that  God  sent  not 
his  Son  into  the  world  to  condemn  the  tvorld,  but  that 
the  world  through  him  might  be  saved  ;  that  Christ 
came  not  to  judge  the  world  but  to  save  the  world  ; 
that  He  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins,  and  not  for  ours 
only,  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world  ;  that  as 
by  one  trespass  the  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to 
condemnation,  even  so  through  one  act  of  righteous- 
ness  the  free  gift  came  unto  all  men  unto  justification 
of  life. 

Must  Dr.  Briggs  and  the  Bible  be  charged  with 
teaching  either  the  doctrine  of  Universalism  or  the 


148  TRIAL  OF  DR   BRIGGS. 

doctrine  of  a  second  probation  because  of  such  state- 
ments ? 

Dr.  Briggs  was  showing  that  the  teaching  of  the 
Bible  warrants  us  in  believing  (as  the  greatest  of 
orthodox  divines  have  taught)  that  the  number  of  the 
redeemed  will  ultimately  be  so  vast,  as  compared  with 
the  number  of  the  lost,  that  salvation  will  be  seen  to 
have  extended  to  the  whole  race.  The  redeemed  will 
not  be  a  limited  number  selected  from  among  the 
mass,  but  on  the  contrary,  the  redeemed  will  be  the 
mass,  —  "  a  great  multitude  which  no  man  could  num- 
ber, out  of  every  nation  and  out  of  all  tribes  and  peoples 
and  tongues,"  —  and  the  lost  a  limited  number.1 

But  what  is  our  surprise  to  find  that  the  prosecution 
see  in  Dr.  Briggs'  language  a  denial  of  the  doctrine 
of  election!  They  say:  "According  to  Dr.  Briggs, 
redemption  is  not  limited  by  election.  He  says,  '  The 
Bible  does  not  teach  universal  salvation,  but  it  does 
teach  the  salvation  of  the  world,  of  the  race  of  man, 
and  that  cannot  be  accomplished  by  the  selection  of  a 
limited  number  of  individuals  from  the  mass.'  " 

1  "  That  the  benefits  of  redemption  shall  far  outweigh  the  evils 
of  the  fall,  is  hen;  clearly  asserted.  This  we  can  in  a  measure 
comprehend,  heeause  the  number  of  the  saved  shall  doubtless 
greatly  exceed  the  number  of  the  lost.  Since  the  half  of  man- 
kind die  in  infancy,  and,  according  to  the  Protestant  doctrine, 
are  heirs  of  salvation  ;  and  since  in  the  future  state  of  the  Church 
the  knowledge  of  the  Lord  is  to  cover  the  earth,  we  have  reason 
to  believe  that  the  lost  shall  bear  to  the  saved  no  greater  propor- 
tion than  the  inmates  of  a  prison  do  to  the  mass  of  the  com- 
munity." (Dr.  Charles  Hodge's  Commentary  on  Romans,  chap.  v. 
verse  21.) 


"THE   REJECTED   CHARGES."  149 

Why  did  the  prosecution  not  go  on  and  quote  Dr. 
Briggs'  next  sentence  as  part  of  their  argument  ? 
It  is  as  follows  :  "  The  holy  arm  that  worketh  salva- 
tion does  not  contract  its  hand  in  grasping  only  a  few  ; 
it  stretches  its  loving  fingers  so  as  to  comprehend  as 
many  as  possible, —  a  definite  number,  but  multitudes 
that  no  one  can  number." 

To  place  a  Christian  minister's  ecclesiastical  life 
in  jeopardy  by  such  a  misreading  and  misuse  of  plain 
language  is  a  grave  mistake,  which  the  prosecution 
themselves  should  be  the  first  to  hasten  to  correct. 

The  prosecution  make  a  similar  misapplication  of 
the  following  language  quoted  from  page  53  of  the 
inaugural :  "  Another  fault  of  Protestant  theology  is 
in  its  limitation  of  the  processes  of  redemption  to  this 
world,  and  its  neglect  of  those  vast  periods  of  time 
which  have  elapsed  for  most  men  in  the  middle  state 
between  death  and  the  resurrection."  They  have  in- 
terpreted this  to  mean  that  Dr.  Briggs  holds  that  men 
can  be  regenerated  in  the  middle  state,  —  a  doctrine  he 
distinctly  disavows.  Had  they  remembered  that  he 
was  speaking,  not  of  one  act  in  the  plan  of  redemption, 
but  of  the  processes  or  progress  of  redemption  in  the 
case  of  those  already  regenerated,  they  might  have 
avoided  this  mistake. 

Another  mistake  into  which  the  prosecution  have 
fallen  is  that  of  disregarding  the  well-known  principle 
of  interpretation  that  when  any  statement  made  by 
a  writer  is  obscure  and  there  is  a  question  about 
"  the  true  and  full  sense  "  of  it,  its  meaning  is  to  be 
u  searched  and  known  by  other  places  "  in  the  writings 


150  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

of  that  author,  'k  which  speak  more  clearly."      The 

prosecution  quote  from  page  56  of  the  inaugural  a  sen- 
tence  which  is  somewhat  obscure  to  them,  and  which 
fchey  interpret  as  teaching  that  regeneration  can  take 
place  after  death.  Had  they  remembered  that  in  other 
j daces  Dr.  Briggs  distinctly  disavows  this  doctrine 
they  would  have  decided  otherwise.  The  sentence 
referred  to  is  the  following :  — 

"The  salvation  of  the  world  can  only  mean  the  world 
as  a  whole,  compared  with  which  the  unredeemed  will  be 
><»  lew  and  insignificant,  and  evidently  beyond  the  reach 
of  redemption  by  their  own  art  of  rejecting  it  and  harden- 
ing themselves  against  it,  and  by  descending  into  such 
depths  <»f  demoniacal  depravity  in  the  middle  state  that 
tiny  will  vanish  from  the  sight  of  the  redeemed  as  alto- 
gether and  anredeemably  evil,  and  never  more  disturb  the 
harmonies  of  the  saints.'1 

When  read  in  the  light  of  what  Dr.  Briggs  teaches 
in  other  places,  the  key  to  the  proper  interpretation  of 
the  sentence  is  the  word  "evidently,"  which  is  equiva- 
lent to  "  will  be  seen  to  be;"  and  the  meaning  is  not 
that  they  will  place  themselves  beyond  the  reach  of  re- 
demption by  k*  descending  into  such  depths  of  demon- 
iacal depravity  in  the  middle  state,  etc.,"  but  that  their 
"  descending  into  such  depths  of  demoniacal  de- 
pravity." together  with  the  fact  of  their  having  by 
their  own  act  rejected  salvation  and  hardened  them- 
selves against  it,  will  he  seen  by  the  saints  to  be  such 
an  evidence  or  proof  of  their  being  altogether  and 
unredeemable  evil  that  they  will  finally  u  vanish  from 


"THE   REJECTED  CHARGES."  151 

the  sight  of  the  redeemed,"  and  never  more  disturb 
their  harmonies. 

The  prosecution,  ignoring  all  that  Dr.  Briggs  has 
plainly  taught  in  other  places,  and  as  if  bound  to  put, 
not  the  more  favorable,  but  the  less  favorable  con- 
struction upon  his  words,  remark  that  "  if  Dr.  Briggs 
does  not  teach  in  this  passage  that  some  men  who 
die  impenitent  might  have  been  redeemed  in  the 
middle  state  but  for  their  *  descending  to  such  depths 
of  demoniacal  depravity  in  the  middle  state,'  then 
certainly  when  he  tried  to  clothe  his  concept  with 
language,  he  puts  its  clothes  on  upside  down."  It 
does  not  seem  to  have  occurred  to  the  prosecution 
that  perhaps  it  was  not  the  clothes  of  the  sentence 
that  were  upside  down,  but  that  they  were  themselves 
mentally  upside  down  while  looking  at  the  clothes. 

The  prosecution  should  have  remembered  that  as 
far  back  as  1824  the  Assembly  announced  the  prin- 
ciple that  "  candor  requires  that  a  court  should  favor 
the  accused  by  putting  on  his  words  the  more  favor- 
able rather  than  the  less  favorable  construction." 
(Moore's  Digest,  p.  224.) 

The  next  mistake  into  which  the  prosecution  have 
fallen  is  that  of  failing  to  observe  the  distinction 
between  hypothetical  statements  and  positive  state- 
ments. When  Dr.  Briggs,  writing  as  an  apologist  and 
inquirer  after  the  truth  upon  a  subject,  raises  and 
discusses  questions  that  seem  to  have  a  bearing  upon 
that  subject,  or  discusses  texts  of  Scripture  that  seem 
to  throw  light  upon  it,  or  for  the  sake  of  a  thorough 
investigation  of  the  subject  assumes  the  possible  cor- 


152  TRIAL  OF    DR.  BRIGGS. 

rcctness  of  doctrines  which  are  commonly  regarded 
as  unsound,  the  prosecution  charge  him  with  holding 
and  teaching  every  idea  he  has  made  use  of  in  dis- 
cussion in  this  way.  Then  they  wonder  what  he 
means  when  he  declares  that  he  does  not  teach  those 
ideas. 

This  applies  to  several  of  the  false  positions  they 
charge  him  with  holding  under  these  two  rejected 
charges  as  well  as  elsewhere.  For  example,  when 
Dr.  BriggS  is  referring  to  the  scripture  which  declares 
that  the  unpardonable  sin  shall  not  be  forgiven,  nei- 
ther in  this  life  nor  in  the  life  to  come,  the  prosecu- 
tion quote  his  words  as  follows  :  — 

"This  raises  the  question  whether  any  man  is  irre- 
trievably lost  ere  he  commits  the  unpardonable  sin,  and 
whether  those  who  do  not  commit  it  in  this  world  ere  they 
die  are,  by  the  mere  crisis  of  death,  brought  into  an  un- 
pardonable state  ;  and  whether,  when  Jesus  said  that  this 
sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit  was  unpardonable  here  and 
also  hereafter,  be  did  not  imply  that  all  other  sins  might 
be  pardoned  hereafter  as  well  as  here." 

It  will  be  observed  that  Dr.  Briggs  has  made  no 
positive  statement  here,  no  declaration  of  his  views, 
but  has  simply  said  that  a  certain  passage  of  Scrip- 
ture raises  certain  questions.  But  the  prosecution 
class  this  with  the  other  statements  already  given, 
which  they  have  been  shown  to  have  misunderstood 
and  misapplied,  and  say  of  it  and  of  them,  "  These 
declarations  are  contrary  to  direct  statements  of 
Scripture,"  —  the   first  and  most  direct  of  which  is 


"THE   REJECTED  CHARGES."  153 

Prov.  xi.  7  :  "  When  a  wicked  man  dieth,  his  expecta- 
tion shall  perish,  and  the  hope  of  unjust  men  per- 
isheth." 

The'  prosecution  might  have  learned  from  one  of 
Dr.  Briggs'  apologetic  statements,  quoted  by  them- 
selves, that  their  charge  against  him  of  teaching  that 
regeneration  can  take  place  in  the  middle  state,  is 
unfounded.  They  quote  from  page  220  of  his  work 
entitled  "  Whither,"  the  following  words :  "  The 
question  which  we  have  to  determine  as  Calvinists  is 
whether  the  divine  act  of  regeneration  may  take  place 
in  the  middle  state."  This  statement,  which  is 
unfortunately  severed  from  its  context,  proves  that 
Dr.  Briggs  docs  not  believe  that  it  has  yet  been  shown 
that  the  divine  act  of  regeneration  may  take  place  in 
the  middle  state.  He  stated  before  the  Assembly 
that  he  would  be  glad  to  teach  this  doctrine  if  it 
could  be  found  in  the  Bible,  but  he  could  not  find  it 
there,  and  therefore  could  not  teach  it.  This  was  a 
much  stronger  testimony  against  the  doctrine  of  a 
second  probation  than  could  possibly  be  borne  by  any 
of  those  who  have  no  care  whatever  regarding  this 
matter.  Is  it  an  offence  to  cherish  a  willingness  to 
teach  any  doctrine  that  can  be  proved  to  be  a  doctrine 
of  the  Bible  ?  Would  not  the  members  of  the  Pros- 
ecuting Committee  themselves  be  glad  to  preach  the 
doctrine  of  a  second  probation  if  it  were  taught  in  the 
Word  of  God  ?  Any  man  would  who  is  not  lacking 
in  that  charity  which  "  hopcth  all  things." 

What  has  been  said  of  the  failure  on  the  part 
of   the   prosecution   to   distinguish   between  positive 


154  TRIAL  OF   bB.  BBIGG8. 

statements  and  hypothetical  or  apologetic  statements 
applies  to  their  charge  against  Dr.  Briggs  of  teaching 
the  non-fulfilment  of  Old  Testament  predictions,  and 
especially  Messianic  prophecy.  In  order  to  refute 
their  arguments,  all  that  was  necessary  was  for  Dr. 
Briggs  to  read  his  teaching  on  the  subject  from  his 
well-known  work  on  "  Messianic  Prophecy."  Before- 
reading  from  this  work  he  said  :  — 

"I  have  been  teaching  Messianic  prophecy  for  twenty 
years  to  a  thousand  Christian  ministers,  who  are  now  at 

work  in  all  parts  of  the  world.  I  wrote  this  work  on 
'Messianic  Prophecy'  after  many  years  of  teaching  and 
careful  revision  of  my  lectures.  This  booh  lias  been 
translated  into  the  Japanese  language,  and  is  now  in  use 

in  several  theological  colleges  in  Japan.  They  see  no 
error  in  it,  and  it  has  received  the  commendation  of  no 
less  a  man  than  William  E.  Gladstone,  and  the  hearty 
approval  of  no  less  evangelical  a  man  than  Dr.  Franz 
Delitsch  of  Leipsic." 

Dr.  Briggs  then  read  at  length  from  this  work,  and 
so  completely  did  his  quotations  refute  the  charge  his 
opponents  had  made  against  him  regarding  the  non- 
fulfilment  of  Messianic  prophecy  that  somewhat  of 
a  sensation  was  caused  in  the  court.  When  the  book 
was  produced,  a  member  of  the  court  asked  the  ques- 
tion, "When  was  that  book  written?"  It  proved  to 
have  been  written  in  1886.  After  the  reading  of  the 
quotations  from  it,  Dr.  Briggs  was  interrupted  by  an- 
other member  of  the  court,  as  follows  :  — 

"We  have  listened  to  what  Dr.  Briggs  has  said  on 
that  subject,  and  I  should  like  to  ask  him  a  question. 


"THE  REJECTED   CHARGES."  155 

That  book  was  written  in  1886,  and  I  should  like  to 
ask  if  that  is  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Briggs  at  this  time? 
Does  he  subscribe  to  the  same  opinion  now  ?" 

"  Certainly,  I  do,"  said  Dr.  Briggs.     "  That  book  I 
use  as  a  text-book  in   the  Union  Theological  Semi- 
nary, where  it  has  been  used  continuously  ever  since 
it  was  written.     Every  senior  class  goes  over  it  every 
-year.     I  have  not  changed  a  particle." 

The  member  of  the  Judicial  Committee  referred  to 
in  a  former  chapter  as  feeling  so  deeply  in  regard  to 
the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  was  the  next 
questioner.  He  said  :  "  Before  Dr.  Briggs  sits  down, 
in  justice  to  him  and  my  own  mind,  —  I  did  not  inter- 
rupt him  in  the  course  of  his  argument, —  I  would 
like  to  ask  him  if,  in  his  book  on  Messianic  Proph- 
ecy, which  I  have  never  read,  from  pages  4  to  45 
he  makes  the  statement  that  '  the  essential  ideals 
of  predictive  prophecy  are  fulfilled.'  Is  that  the 
position  ?  That  is  all  I  desire  to  ask."  Here  the 
moderator  indicated  that  there  was  no  time  just  then 
for  the  asking  and  answering  of  questions,  as  the 
hour  of  adjournment  had  come.  So  Dr.  Briggs  re- 
plied to  the  above  question  by  simply  saying,  "  I 
read  over  the  appeal.  The  brother  can  read  it  after 
the  meeting." 

The  questioner  was  not  satisfied  with  this  answer, 
and  said :  "  What  I  want  to  ask  through  you,  Mr. 
Moderator,  is,  whether  Dr.  Briggs  gives  a  definition 
of  what  is  essential  and  what  is  ideal  as  to  what  is  to 
be  fulfilled  in  predictive  prophecy.  That  is  my  first 
question." 


156  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

"  Yes,  I  did  give  a  definition,"  said  Dr.  Briggs, 
"  and  I  will  read  it  over  again  if  you  wish." 

In  reply  the  questioner  said  :  "  I  would  like  him  to 
read  and  state  what  is  the  distinction  between  essen- 
tial and  non-essential  ?  " 

Dr.  Briggs  replied,  "I  shall  have  to  read  the  whole 
chapter.  Mr.  McDougall  can  have  the  book  if  he 
wishes  it." 

The  discussion  was  finally  closed  with  this  state- 
ment by  Dr.  Briggs  in  answer  to  another  questioner : 
"  I  have  shown  in  my  '  Messianic  Prophecy,'  that  the 
great  body  of  Messianic  prediction  had  been,  or  will 
be,  in  the  mediatorial  reign  or  second  advent  of  our 
Lord,  fulfilled  in  history." 

This  was  seen  to  be  a  direct  refutation  of  the 
charge  in  question,  which  was  that  he  taught  "  that 
the  great  body  of  Messianic  prediction  cannot  be 
fulfilled." 

As  these  two  "rejected  charges"  had  not  been 
retained  as  part  of  the  indictment  on  which  Dr. 
Briggs  was  tried  by  the  Presbytery  of  New  York, 
it  was  not  competent  for  the  General  Assembly,  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  church,  to  put  him  on  trial 
upon  them.  All  that  the  Assembly  could  do  was 
either  to  approve  the  Presbyteiy's  action  in  rejecting 
them  or  to  say  that  the  Presbytery  had  erred  in  reject- 
ing the  charges,  and  remit  them  to  the  Presbytery 
for  trial.  Had  the  majority  of  the  Assembly  seen  fit 
to  take  the  latter  of  these  two  courses  Dr.  Briggs  might 
have  appeared  again  before  his  Presbytery  and  had  the 
satisfaction  of  fully  defending  his  views  on  these  two 


"THE  REJECTED  CHARGES."  157 

questions,  and  of  knowing  how  they  wore  regarded 
by  his  brethren  who  stood  nearest  to  him  ecclesiasti- 
cally. The  majority  of  the  Assembly  did  not  see  fit, 
however,  to  take  this  course,  nor  did  they  sustain  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York  in  rejecting  the  charges. 
On  the  contrary  they  decided  that  the  presbytery 
had  erred  in  rejecting  them,  but  left  the  charges 
untried.  The  moral  effect  of  this  action  of  the 
majority  will  no  doubt  be  to  convey  the  impression 
to  the  Church  and  the  world  that  Dr.  Briggs  was 
adjudged  guilty  on  these  two  charges  as  well  as  on 
all  the  other  six. 

Is  there  any  precedent  for  a  superior  or  supreme 
court  deciding  that  charges  which  had  been  rejected 
by  a  lower  court  should  not  have  been  rejected,  —  in 
other  words,  that  they  should  have  been  tried,  —  and 
then  leaving  these  charges  hanging  over  the  accused 
untried  ?  Did  not  the  Assembly,  by  condemning  the 
action  of  the  presbytery  in  not  trying  the  charges, 
virtually  at  the  same  time  condemn  its  own  action 
in  entertaining  those  charges  aud  yet  not  ordering 
them  to  be  tried  ?  And  does  not  this  anomalous 
action  of  the  Assembly  give  weight  to  the  unfortunate 
impression  made  upon  the  minds  of  many,  that  the 
object  of  the  prosecution  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Briggs  was 
not  to  ascertain  the  exact  nature  of  the  guilt  or 
innocence  of  the  accused,  but  to  secure  his  conviction  ; 
and  that  when  charges  enough  had  been  sustained  to 
warrant  his  suspension  from  the  ministry,  the  court 
manifested  indifference  as  to  the  two  additional 
charges  preferred  against  him,  although  these  charges 


158  TRIAL  OF  DR   BRIGGS. 

were  of  a  very  grave  nature,  both  as  affecting  the 
accused  himself  and  the  purity  of  doctrine  in  the 
Church  at  large  ?  Is  not  this  one  of  the  errors  into 
which  the  court  inadvertently  fell  in  its  haste  to  pacify 
the  majority  of  the  Church  by  condemning  one  whom 
they  believed  to  be  guilty  of  heresy  ? 


DECISIONS  AND  PROTESTS.  159 


CHAPTER  XT. 

DECISIONS   AND    PROTESTS. 

THAT  the  reader  may  have  before  him  a  brief 
view  of  the  case  as  a  whole,  there  will  be 
given  in  this  chapter  a  few  essential  facts  connected 
with  its  initiation  in  the  Presbytery  of  New  York, 
and  its  transference  from  the  Presbytery  to  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  together  with  the  full  text  of  the 
decisions  of  the  Presbytery  and  General  Assembly 
thereupon,  and  also  the  protests  which  followed  the 
action  of  the  Washington  Assembly. 

It  was  on  the  occasion  of  his  inauguration  as 
Professor  of  Biblical  Theology  in  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  N.  Y.,  on  the  20th  of  January,  1891  (his 
chair  formerly  having  been  that  of  Professor  of  Hebrew 
and  Cognate  Languages),  that  Dr.  Briggs  delivered  the 
inaugural  address  upon  which  all  the  charges  preferred 
against  him  were  based. 

On  the  13th  day  of  April,  a.  d.  1891,  the  Presby- 
tery of  New  York  appointed  a  committee  to  consider 
the  inaugural  address  of  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs, 
D.  D.,  in  its  relation  to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and 
on  May  11,  a.  d.  1891,  the  committee  presented  to 
presbytery  a  report,  which  was  accepted,  and  its 
recommendation,  "  that  the  presbytery  enter  at  once 


1G0  TRIAL  OK  DR.  BRIGGS. 

upon   the   judicial    investigation   of  the   case,"   was 
adopted  by  the  presbytery,  and  thereupon  it  was  — 

"  Resolved}  That  a  committee  be  appointed  to  arrange 
mid  prepare  the  accessary  proceedings  appropriate  in  the 
of  !>)-.  Briggs." 

The  Rev.  G.  W.  V.  Birch,  D.  I).,  Rev.  Joseph  J. 
Lampe,  D.  !>.,  Rev.  Robert  P.  Sample,  I>.  I>.,  and  Rul- 
ing  Elders  John  J.Stevenson  and  John  J.  McCook 
were  appointed  such  committee  in  conformity  with 
the  provisions  of  section  11  of  the  Book  of  Discipline. 

At  the  meeting  of  presbytery,  held  on  the  5th  day 
of  October,  a.  Dfl891 ,  the  Prosecuting  Committee  pre- 
sented charges'and  specifications  in  the  case,  which 
were  rend  in  the  presence  of  the  judicatory,  and  were 
then  served  by  the  moderator  upon  the  Rev.  Charles 
A.  Briggs,  I>.  D.,  together  with  a  citation,  citing  him 
to  appear  and  plead  to  the  said  charges  and  specifica- 
tions at  a  meeting  of  the  presbytery,  to  be  held  on 
November  4,  a.  d.  1S91. 

On  November  4,  a.  d.  1891,  the  presbytery,  after 
fully  hearing  Dr.  Briggs' "  Response  to  the  Charges 

and    specifications,"    upon     the    motion    of    the    Rev. 

Eenry  Van  Dyke,  D.  D.,  made   and  entered   on  its 

records    its   decision    and    final    judgment   dismissing 

the  case  in  the  following  words,  to  wit:  — 

"Resolved)  Thai  the  Presbytery  of  New  Eork,  having 
listened  to  the  paper  of  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  IJriggs, 
D.  I).,  in  the  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
dnited  States  of  America  against  him  as  to  the  sufficiency 
of  the  charges  and  specifications  in  form  and  legal  effect, 


DECISIONS  AND  PROTESTS.  161 

and  without  approving  of  the  positions  stated  in  his 
inaugural  address,  at  the  same  time  desiring  earnestly 
the  peace  and  quiet  of  the  Church,  and  in  view  of  the 
declarations  made  by  Dr.  Briggs  touching  his  loyalty  to 
the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the  Westminster  Standards,  and 
of  his  disclaimers  of  interpretations  put  on  some  of  his 
words,  deems  it  best  to  dismiss  the  case,  and  hereby  does 
so  dismiss  it." 

From  this  action  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York, 
in  dismissing  the  case,  the  Prosecuting  Committee 
took  an  appeal  in  the  name  and  on  behalf  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  to  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America. 

This  appeal  came  before  the  General  Assembly  at 
Portland,  Oregon,  in  May,  1892,  and  after  the  hear- 
ing of  the  case  the  Assembly  decided  as  follows  :  — 

"The  General  Assembly  having,  on  the  28th  day  of 
May,  1892,  duly  sustained  all  the  specifications  of  error 
alleged  and  set  forth  in  the  appeal  and  specifications  in 
this  case,  — 

"It  is  now,  May  30,  1892,  ordered  that  the  judgment 
of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  entered  November  4, 
1891,  dismissing  the  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America  against  Rev.  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  D.  D.,  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby  reversed,  and 
the  case  is  remanded  to  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  for 
a  new  trial,  with  directions  to  the  said  presbytery  to  pro- 
ceed to  pass  upon  and  determine  the  sufficiency  of  the 
charges  and  specifications  in  form  and  legal  effect,  and  to 
permit  the  Prosecuting  Committee  to  amend  the  specifica- 
tions or  charges,  not  changing  the  general  nature  of  the 

11 


162  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

same,  if,  in  the  furtherance  of  justice,  it  be  necessary  to 
amend,  bo  that  the  case  may  be  brought  to  issue  and  tried 
on  the  merits  thereof  as  speedily  aa  may  be  practicable." 

The  action  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  in  com- 
pliance with  this  decision  of  the  Portland  Assembly 
is  set  forth  in  the  following  report :  — 

On  the  ninth  day  of  January,  1893,  a  committee  con* 
sisting  of  the  Rev.  George  Alexander,  D.  D.,  the  Rev, 
Henry  Van  Dyke,  D.  D.,  and  Elder  Robert  Jaffray,  ap- 
pointed  to  bring  in  a  minute  to  express  the  action  of  the 
said  indicatory,  made  its  report,  which  was  adopted  by 
the  judicatory,  and  the  said  presbytery,  sitting  in  a 
judicial  capacity,  made  and  entered  its  decision  and 
final  judgment  in  this  case,  in  the  following  words,  to 
wit:  — 

"The  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America  against  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs, 
D.  D.,  having  been  dismissed  by  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York  on  November  4,  1891,  was  remanded  by  the  general 
assembly  of  1892  to  the  same  presbytery,  with  instructions 
thai  '  it  be  brought  to  issue  and  tried  on  the  merits  thereof 
as  speedily  as  possible.' " 

"In  obedience  to  this  mandate,  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York  has  tried  the  case.  It  has  listened  to  the  evidence 
and  argument  of  the  committee  of  prosecution,  acting  in 
fidelity  to  the  duty  committed  to  them.  It  has  heard  the 
defence  and  evidence  of  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  lh-iggs,  pre- 
sented in  accordance  with  the  rights  secured  to  every 
minister  of  the  church. 

"The  presbytery  has  kept  in  mind  these  established 
principles  of  our  polity:  that  'no  man  can  rightly  be  con- 
picted  of  heresy  by  inference  or  implication;  "  that  '  in  the 


DECISIONS  AND  PROTESTS.  163 

interpretation  of  ambiguous  expressions  candor  requires 
that  a  court  should  favor  the  accused  by  putting  upon 
his  words  the  more  favorable  rather  than  the  less  favor- 
able construction ;  '  and  that  '  there  are  truths  and  forms 
with  respect  to  which  men  of  good  character  may  differ.' 

"  Giving  due  consideration  to  the  defendant's  explana- 
tion of  the  language  used  in  his  inaugural  address,  accept- 
ing his  frank  and  full  disclaimer  of  the  interpretation 
which  has  been  put  upon  some  of  its  phrases  and  illustra- 
tions, crediting  his  affirmations  of  loyalty  to  the  standards 
of  the  church  and  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  the  only  infal- 
lible rule  of  faith  and  practice,  the  presbytery  does  not 
find  that  he  has  transgressed  the  limits  of  liberty  allowed 
under  our  constitution  to  scholarship  and  opinion. 

"  Therefore,  without  expressing  approval  of  the  critical 
or  theological  views  embodied  in  the  inaugural  address  or 
the  manner  in  which  they  have  been  expressed  and  illus- 
trated, the  presbytery  pronounces  the  Rev.  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  D.  D.,  fully  acquitted  of  the  offences  alleged 
against  him,  the  several  charges  and  specifications  accepted 
for  probation  having  been  '  not  sustained  '  by  the  follow- 
ing vote.      [See  next  page.] 

"  Accordingly,  the  presbytery,  making  full  recognition 
of  the  ability,  sincerity,  and  patience  with  which  the 
committee  of  prosecution  has  performed  the  onerous  duty 
assigned  it,  does  now,  to  the  extent  of  its  constitutional 
power,  relieve  said  committee  from  further  responsibility 
in  connection  with  this  case.  In  so  doing  the  presbytery 
is  not  undertaking  to  decide  how  far  that  committee  is 
subject  to  the  authority  of  the  body  appointing  it,  but 
intends  by  this  action  to  express  an  earnest  conviction 
that  the  grave  issues  involved  in  this  case  will  be  more 
wisely  and  justly  determined  by  calm  investigation  and 


164 


TRIAL   OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 


Sustained. 

Not  Sustained 

Minis- 
ters. 

Elders 

Total 

ters. 

EUea 

1 
Total    1 

f  1.  Specification  . 
j    !  2.  Specification  . 

[  Charge     j  J    ;  ; 

f  1.  Specification  . 
jT    !  2.  Specification  . 

1  Charse  \l ' : 

f  Specification    .  . 
IIL  1  Charge     J  b    '.  .' 

(  Specification    .  . 
IV    ,  Charge    {«   ;  ; 

(  Specification    .  . 
*]  Charge    {«;; 

VI   i  Specification    .  . 
|  Charge 

41 
42 
42 
42 

39 
39 

39 
39 

44 
44 
42 
44 

39 
39 
39 

35 
35 
35 

41 
41 

17 
17 
17 
17 

16 

16 
16 
16 

17 
17 
17 
17 

15 
15 
15 

14 
14 
14 

16 

16 

58 

59 
59 

" 
55 

"" 

61 
61 

61 

54 

54 

54 

49 
49 

W 

55 
54 
54 
54 

' 

56 

56 

52 
52 

54 

55 

55 

57 
57 
57 

55 
55 

15 
15 
15 
15 

16 

16 
16 
16 

15 
15 
15 
15 

17 
17 
17 

16 
16 

16 

14 
14 

69 
69 

72 

72 

72 

- 
69 

72 
72 

69 
69 

fraternal    discussion   than   by    judicial    arraignment    and 
process. 

"  Id  view  of  the  present  disquietude  in  the  Pj 
Church  and  of  the  obligation  resting  upon  all  Christians 
to  walk  in  charity  and  to  have  tender  concern  for  the 
sciences  of  their  brethren,  the  y  earnestly  coun- 

sels its  members  to  avoid   on  the  one  hand  hasty  or  i 
confident  statement  of  private  opinion  on  points  concern- 
ing which  profound  and  reverent  stude:  Word 
are  not  yet  agreed,  and,  on  the  other  hand,,  suspicions  and 


DECISIONS  AND  PROTESTS.  165 

charges  of  false  teaching  which  are  not  clearly  capable  of 
proof. 

"  Moreover,  the  presbytery  advises  and  exhorts  all  sub- 
ject to  its  authority  to  regard  the  many  and  great  things 
in  which  we  agree  rather  than  the  few  and  minor  things 
in  which  we  differ;  and,  turning  from  the  paths  of  contro- 
versy, to  devote  their  energies  to  the  great  and  urgent 
work  of  the  Church,  which  is  the  proclamation  of  the 
gospel  and  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ." 

It  was  from  this  verdict  of  acquittal  by  the  Pres- 
bytery of  New  York  that  the  Prosecuting  Committee 
appealed  to  the  Washington  Assembly,  with  the  result 
set  forth  in  the  pages  of  this  review. 

After  the  final  vote  had  been  taken  in  the  Assem- 
bly, which  resulted  in  the  appeal  against  the  decision 
of  acquittal  by  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  being 
sustained  by  a  vote  of  383  to  116,  a  committee  of 
fifteen  was  appointed,  with  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hoyt,  of 
Philadelphia,  chairman,  "  to  bring  in  an  explanatory 
minute"  and  report  what  "action  should  be  taken 
with  reference  to  what  should  be  done  with  the 
inferior  judicatory." 

Before  the  report  of  this  committee  was  read,  the 
Rev.  Geo.  D.  Baker,  D.D.,  was  asked  by  Dr.  Hoyt 
to  make  a  statement  on  behalf  of  a  sub-committee 
which  had  been  sent  to  interview  Dr.  Briggs,  "  and  give 
him  an  opportunity  to  say  whatever  he  might  be  pleased 
to  say  in  view  of  the  distressing  circumstances." 

"  Our  interview,"  said  Dr.  Baker,  "  was  frank,  kind, 
and  cordial  to  the  last  degree  ;  but  Dr.  Briggs  in- 
sisted strenuously,  positively,  irrevocably,  upon  every- 


TRIAL   OF    UK    131 

thing  that  he  had  said  in  the  defence  which  he  made 
when  brought  to  the  bar  of  this  court    At  my  req 
he   gave  into  my  bands  thu  ment  in  I 

handwriting,  which  J  will  road:  — 

"  In  accordance  with  your  request,  I  hereby  state  that 
your  committee  called  upon  me  to  a.sk  me  if  I  had  any- 
thing to  them  the  disposition  of  the 
I  thereupon  said  that  I  adhered  to  all  the  positions 
taken  before  the  General  Assembly,  arid  had  nothing  fur- 
ther *  the  appellee  j  11  rights,  and 
that  the  Q  Assembly  should  take  the  excln 
for  any  further  action." 

Dr.  Boyt  read  the  following,  which  ••  wards 

adopted  as  the  judgment  of  the  Assembly  in   the 

:  — 

"General  Assembly  of  the  erian  Church  in  the 

United  States  of  America,  .  hington,  Dii 

trict  of  Columbia,  June  1,  1803. 

'  burch  in  the  United  I  America, 

appellant,  <■  .  Rev.  Charlei  A.  Briggs,  \).  I).,  appellee. 

appeal  from  the  :. 
of  New  York. 

"Thia  appeal  being   .    .  ted  and  coming  on 

to  be  heard  on  the  judgment,  the  notice  of  appeal,  the 
appeal,    and    the    .specification-   of   error   alleged,    and  the 
record  in  the  case  from  the  beginning,  the  reading  th< 
having  been  omitted  >nt,  and  the  parties  hereto 

having  been  heard  before  the  judicatory  in  argument,  and 
the  opportunity  having  been  given  to  the  members!  of  the 
judicatory  appealed  from  to  he  heard,  and  they  having 
been  beard,   and  opportunity   having   been  given  to  the 


DECISIONS  AND  PROTESTS.  167 

members  of  this  judicatory  to  be  heard,  and  they  having 
been  heard,  as  provided  by  the  Book  of  Discipline,  and 
the  General  Assembly,  as  a  judicatory,  sitting  in  said  case 
on  appeal,  having  sustained  the  following  specifications  of 
errors,  to  wit:  all  of  said  specifications  of  errors  set  forth 
in  said  five  grounds  of  appeal,  save  and  except  the  first  and 
fifth  specification  under  the  fourth  ground  of  appeal  — 

"On  consideration  whereof  this  judicatory  finds  said 
appeal  should  be  and  is  hereby  sustained,  and  that  said 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  the  judicatory  appealed  from, 
erred  in  striking  out  said  amended  charges  4  and  7,  and 
erred  in  not  sustaining  on  the  law  and  the  evidence  said 
amended  charges  1,  2,  3,  5,  6,  and  8. 

"On  consideration  whereof,  this  judicatory  finds  that 
said  final  judgment  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  is 
erroneous,  and  should  be  and  is  hereby  reversed. 

"And  this  General  Assembly,  sitting  as  a  judicatory 
in  said  cause,  coming  now  to  enter  judgment  on  said 
amended  charges  1,  2,  3,  5,  6,  and  8,  finds  that  the  said 
Charles  A.  Briggs  has  uttered,  taught,  and  propagated 
views,  doctrines,  and  teachings  as  set  forth  in  said  charges 
contrary  to  the  essential  doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture  and 
the  standards  of  the  said  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  and  in  violation  of  the  ordina- 
tion vow  of  said  appellee,  which  said  erroneous  teachings, 
views,  and  doctrines  strike  at  the  vitals  of  religion,  and 
have  been  industriously  spread;  wherefore  this  General 
Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  sitting  as  a  judicatory  in  this  cause  on 
appeal,  does  hereby  suspend  Charles  A.  Briggs,  the  said 
appellee,  from  the  office  of  a  minister  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  until  such  time 
as  he  shall  give  satisfactory  evidence  of  repentance  to  the 


168  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BKIGGS. 

General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America  of  the  violation  by  him  of  the 
said  ordination  vow,  as  herein  and  heretofore  found:  and 

it  is  ordered  that  the  stated  clerk  of  this  General  Assem- 
bly transmit  a  certified  copy  of  this  judgment  to  the  Pres- 
bytery of  New  York,  to  be  made  a  part  of  the  record  in 
this  case." 

"  Mr.  Moderator,  in  addition  to  this  report  of  judg- 
ment, there  were  also  formulated  by  us  in  obedience 
to  your  commands  doctrinal  statements  bearing  upon 
the  issues  which  have  been  pending  here,  and  with 
your  permission  I  will  ask  that  Rev.  Dr.  Ilarsha,  the 
chairman  of  the  sub-committee,  read  that  paper." 

Rev.  Dr.  Haiisha. — The  report,  Mr.  Moderator,  of 
this  sub-committee  is  a  very  brief  one.  We  did  not 
deem  it  advisable  to  go  into  large  details  on  the  doc- 
trinal points  raised  in  this  appeal. 

"Your  committee,  to  whom  was  intrusted  the  duty  of 
formulating  a  deliverance  of  tins  Assembly  on  the  doctrinal 
points  involved  in  the  appeal  of  the  committee  of  prosecu- 
tion from  the  decision  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  in 
the  case  of  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.,  reports  as  follows: 

"  1.  We  find  that  the  doctrine  of  the  errancy  of  Scrip- 
ture, as  it  came  from  them  to  whom  and  through  whom  God 
originally  communicated  His  revelation,  is  in  conflict  with 
the  statements  of  the  Holy  Scripture  itself,  which  asserts 
that  all  scripture,  or  every  scripture,  is  given  by  the 
inspiration  of  God  (2  Timothy  iii.  1G);  that  the  prophecy 
came  not  of  old  by  the  will  of  man,  but  that  holy  men  of 
God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost  (2  Peter 
i.  21) ;   and  also  with  the  statements  of  the  standards  of 


DECISIONS  AND  PROTESTS.  169 

the  church  which  assert,  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments  are  the  Word  of  God  (Larger 
Catechism,  question  3),  of  infallible  Truth  and  Divine 
Authority  (Confession,  chapter  i.  section  v.). 

"2.  We  find  in  this  case  involved  the  question  of  the 
sufficiency  of  the  human  Reason  and  of  the  Church,  as 
authorized  guides  in  the  matter  of  salvation.  Your 
committee  recommends  that  this  General  Assembly  de- 
clare that  the  Reason  and  the  Church  are  not  to  be 
regarded  as  fountains  of  Divine  Authority ;  that  they  are 
unreliable  and  variable,  and  whilst  they  may  be,  and  no 
doubt  are,  channels  or  media  through  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  may  reach  and  influence  for  good  the  human  soul, 
they  are  not  to  be  relied  upon  as  sufficient  in  themselves, 
and  aside  from  Holy  Scripture,  to  lead  the  soul  to  a  saving 
knowledge  of  God.  To  teach  otherwise  is  most  dangerous, 
and  contrary  to  the  Word  of  God  and  our  standards,  and  our 
ministers  and  churches  are  solemnly  warned  against  them. 

"3.  We  find  involved  in  this  case  a  speculation  in 
regard  to  the  process  of  the  soul's  sanctification  after  death 
which  in  the  judgment  of  this  Assembly  is  a  dangerous 
hypothesis,  in  direct  conflict  with  the  plain  teachings  of 
the  Divine  Word  and  the  utterances  of  the  standards  of 
our  church.  Those  standards  distinctly  declare  that  the 
souls  of  believers  are  at  their  death  made  perfect  in  holi- 
ness and  do  immediately  pass  into  glory,  whilst  their 
bodies,  being  still  united  to  Christ,  do  rest  in  their  graves 
till  the  resurrection.  (Shorter  Catechism,  question  37; 
Cor.  v.  3;  Phil.  i.  23;  and  John  xvii.  24.)  " 

Against  the  foregoing  judgment  of  the  Assembly, 
and  a  declaration  by  the  Assembly  that  the  original 
manuscripts  of  the  Bible  were  without  error,  protests, 


170  TRIAL  OF   DR  BRIO' 

which  were  largely  signed,  were  submitted 
Dr.  Sprague,  of  Auburn,  and  Rev.  Dr.  Herrick  John- 
son, of  Chicago,  respectively. 

The    following    is    the    protest    |  >y    \^r. 

Sprague,    of    Auburn,    in    regard    to    the    E 
against  Dr.  Briggs  :  — 

"We,  the  undersigned,  ministers  and  elders  in  the  P 
byterian  Church  in  the  United  Stav*  lare 

our  hearty  belief  in,  and  love  for,  the  Holy  Scripture* 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  and  our  entire  loyah 

the    principles   of    the    Presbyterian   Church,    and    de 
respectfully  to  record  our  solemn  protest  against  the 
diet  and  suspension,  and  the  proceedings  leading  to  the 
verdict,  of  the  case  against  tl  harles  A 

D.  D.,  in  the  General  Assembly  of  1893  — 

"1.  As  involving,  in  our  judgment,  acts  of  doubtful 
constitutionality. 

i(2.  As  seeming  to  abridge  the  liberty  of  opinion  hith- 
erto enjoyed  under  our  standards  by  office-bearers  in  the 
church. 

"3.   Tending,  we  believe,  to  the  discouragement  of  the 
thorough    study   of    the    Bible,    and    reverent   ad 
apprehension  of  divine  truth;   and  — 

"  4.  As  inflicting  what  we  cannot  but  feel  is  an  injustice 
on  a  Christian  scholar  of  acknowledged  high  character  and 
learning,  as  well  as  on  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  wl 
has  fully  acquitted  him  of  the  charges  alleged  against  him." 

The  resolution  offered  by  Dr.  Herrick  Johnson,  in 
behalf  of  himself  and  others,  was  as  follows  :  — 

"The  undersigned  enter  respectful  and  ear:, 
against   the  action  of  the   Assembly  which   declares   the 


DECISIONS  AND  PROTESTS.  171 

inerrancy  of  the  original  autographs  of  Scripture  to  be 
the  faith  of  the  church. 

"We  protest  against  this  action  — 

"1.  Because  it  is  insisting  upon  a  certain  theory  of 
inspiration,  when  our  standards  have  hitherto  only  em- 
phasized the  fact  of  inspiration.  So  far  as  the  original 
manuscript  came  from  God,  undoubtedly  it  was  without 
error.  But  we  have  no  means  of  determining  how  far 
God  controlled  the  penmen  in  transcribing  from  docu- 
ments matters  purely  circumstantial. 

"2.  Because  it  is  dogmatizing  on  a  matter  of  which 
necessarily  we  have  no  positive  knowledge. 

"3.  Because  it  is  insisting  upon  an  interpretation  of 
our  standards  which  they  never  have  borne,  and  which  on 
their  face  is  impossible.  No  man  in  subscribing  to  his 
belief  in  the  Scripture  as  the  Word  of  God,  the  only 
infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  has  his  mind  on  the 
'  original  autographs/ 

"4.  Because  it  is  getting  up  an  imaginary  Bible  as  a 
test  of  orthodoxy.  If  an  inerrant  original  Bible  is  vital 
to  faith,  we  cannot  escape  the  conclusion  that  an  inerrant 
present  Bible  is  vital  to  faith. 

"5.  Because  it  is  disparaging  the  Bible  we  have  and 
endangering  its  authority,  under  the  pressure  of  a  preva- 
lent hostile  criticism.  It  seems  like  flying  for  shelter 
to  an  original  autograph,  when  the  Bible  we  have  in  our 
hands  to-day  is  an  impregnable  defence. 

" Believing  the  present  Scripture  to  be  'the  very  Word 
of  God,'  and  'immediately  inspired  by  God,'  'kept  pure 
in  all  ages,'  and  'our  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice,'  notwithstanding  some  apparent  discrepancies  in 
matters  purely  circumstantial,  we  earnestly  protest  against 
the  thrusting  of  this  new  interpretation  of  our  standards 


172  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

upon  the  church  to  bind  men's  consciences  by  enforced 
subscription  to  its  terms." 

To  this  protest  the  committee  appointed  to  prepare 
an  answer  recommended  the  adoption  of  the  follow- 
ing, and  its  report  was  accepted :  — 

"  The  committee  appointed  to  prepare  an  answer  to  the 
protest  of  Dr.  Herrick  Johnson,  Dr.  S.  J.  Niccolls,  and 
others,  recommend  the  adoption  of  the  following:  — 

"As  already  announced  by  this  General  Assembly,  the 
deliverance  of  the  Portland  Assembly,  and  the  deliver- 
ances of  this  body,  touching  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  impose  no  new  test  of  orthodoxy,  nor  do  they 
set  forth  any  theory  of  inspiration,  but  only  reaffirm  the 
statement  of  our  Confession  of  Faith,  chapter  i.  sections  2, 
4,  5,  8,  and  10,  the  Larger  Catechism  question  3,  —  state- 
ments to  which  every  minister  and  every  elder  in  the 
church  gives  his  assent  at  his  ordination  in  response  to 
the  following  question:  'Do  you  believe  the  Scriptures  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  to  be  the  Word  of  God,  and 
onlyinfallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ? ' 

"We  can,  therefore,  say  with  the  protestants,  we  be- 
lieve '  these  present  Scriptures  to  be  the  very  word  of 
God,'  and  'immediately  inspired  by  God,'  'kept  pure  in 
all  ages,'  and  our  only  'infallible  rule  of  faith  and  prac- 
tice,' while  if  errors  were  found  in  the  original  autographs 
they  could  not  have  proceeded  from  '  God,  who  is  truth 
itself,   the  author  thereof.' 


It  may  be  noted  here  that  the  Assembly  passed  a 
resolution  also  expressive  of  its  disapproval  of  the 
action  of  the  directors  of  Union  Theological  Seminary 


DECISIONS   AND  PEOTESTS.  173 

in  standing  by  Dr.  Briggs,  retaining  him  as  a  teacher, 
and  rescinding  their  resolution  of  1870,  which  pro- 
vided that  all  appointments  of  professors  "  shall  be 
reported  to  the  General  Assembly,  and  no  such 
appointment  of  professor  shall  be  considered  as  a 
complete  election  if  disapproved  by  a  majority  of  the 
Assembly/'  The  rescinding  of  this  resolution  had 
been  voted  for  by  nineteen  of  the  twenty  directors, 
only  one  of  the  twenty  directors  being  opposed 
to  it. 

The  fact  that  those  who  stood  nearest  to  Dr.  Briggs, 
and  were  presumably  best  acquainted  with  him  and 
his  views,  stood  by  him  in  the  face  of  whatever  sacri- 
fice it  might  cost  them,  might  have  been  regarded  as 
an  indication  that  those  who  were  gathered  together 
from  far  and  near,  and  who  were  not  intimately  ac- 
quainted with  Dr.  Briggs  and  his  teaching,  had  mis- 
understood the  man  and  misinterpreted  his  views* 
But  the  Assembly  did  not  so  judge ;  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, condemned  the  action  of  the  directors  of  the 
Union  Theological  Seminary  by  adopting  the  follow- 
ing recommendations  of  its  committee  on  Theological 
Seminaries :  — 

"  Because,  then,  of  the  strange  and  unwarranted  action 
of  the  directors  in  retaining  Dr.  Briggs  after  his  appoint- 
ment had  been  disapproved  by  the  Assembly;  and  because 
of  the  refusal  by  the  directors  to  arbitrate  the  single  point 
in  dispute  between  the  Assembly  and  the  board;  and 
because  of  the  attempt  of  the  board  on  its  own  motion,  and 
against  the  expressed  desire  of  the  Assembl}"  to  abrogate 
the  compact  of  1870,  the  Assembly  disavows  all  responsi- 


174  TRIAL   OF   DR.  BRIGGS. 

bility  for  tin-  teaching  of  Union  Seminary,  and  declines  to 
receive  any  report  from  its  bdard  until  satisfactory  rela- 
tions are  established.  The  Assembly,  however,  cherishes 
tlie  hope,  and  will  cordially  welcome  any  effort  to  bring 
Union  Seminary  into  such  a  relationship  with  itself  as 
will  enable  the  Assembly  to  commend  the  institution 
again  to  students  for  the  ministry. 

"Your  committee  would  further  recommend  thai  the 
board  of  education  be  enjoined  to  give  aid  to  such  students 
only  as  may  be  in  attendance  upon  seminaries  approved 
by  the  Assembly. 

"Your  committee  would  also  recommend  that  the  re- 
election of  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs  by  the  Presbytery 
of  New  York  as  a  director  of  \hr  German  Theological 
Seminary  at  Bloomfield,  N.  J.,  be  disaffirmed  by  this 
Assembly." 

The  following  explanatory  remarks  by  Prof.  Francis 
Drown,  J). I).,  should  he  added:  — 

"Mr.  Moderator  and  brethren,  there  is  no  member  of 
the  board  of  directors  of  Union  Seminary  on  the  floor  of 
this   house.      Therefore,  although    1    am   a   member  of   the 

faculty,  and,  as  such,  responsible  only  to  the    board  of 

directors  for  instruction  in  a  certain  department,  1  may  he 
pardoned,  as  Standing  here  in  some  sense  for  the  seminary, 
for  saying  a  few  words. 

"I  desire  not  to  introduce  personal  elements  into  this 
discussion.  Although,  at  the  outset  I  may  he  permitted 
to  say,  now  that   the  judicial   case  is   substantially  closed, 

that  in  refraining  from  personal  'dements  in  the  discussion 
at  the  present  time  I  do  so  without  prejudice  to  my  warm 
affection,    high   esteem,   and    confidence   in   my    revered 


DECISIONS  AND  PROTESTS.  175 

teacher,  colleague,  and  friend,  who  has  been  so  promi- 
nently before  you  during  the  past  few  days. 

"With  reference  to  the  action  proposed  by  this  assem- 
bly concerning  Union  Seminary,  I  have  no  objection  to 
offer.  If  this  assembly  desires  to  take  such  action,  or 
esteems  it  to  be  just  and  wise,  no  difficulty  will  be  thrown 
in  its  way  by  any  word  that  I  shall  speak.  Union  Semi- 
nary is  not  here  pleading  for  an3rthing  from  this  assembly, 
either  recognition  or  indorsement,  either  the  receipts  of 
these  reports  or  the  recommendation  of  students  who  may 
be  sent  to  it  to  the  board  of  education.  These  matters 
must  be  decided  by  authorities  other  than  those  of  Union 
Seminary. 

"  The  case  is  simply  this :  Union  Seminary  was  founded 
as  an  independent  seminary  upon  its  own  charter,  owing 
ecclesiastical  allegiance  as  an  institution  to  no  body  what- 
ever. It  continued  in  the  exercise  of  its  rights  under  its 
charter,  without  any  ecclesiastical  connection  whatsoever, 
for  thirty-four  years.  At  the  end  of  that  time  it  entered 
into  an  agreement  with  the  General  Assembly  of  the  united 
church  with  certain  provisions.  Twenty-one  years  later  it 
conceived  that  those  provisions  had  not  been  carried  out 
on  the  part  of  the  General  Assembly,  and,  recognizing  fully 
the  intention  of  the  Assembly  to  abide  by  the  agreement, 
it  nevertheless  felt  that  its  chartered  and  constitutional 
rights  had  been  infringed,  and  that,  without  surrendering 
a  part  of  those  chartered  and  constitutional  rights  and 
proving  in  this  way  false  to  the  trust  which  the  charter 
and  the  constitution  imposed  on  the  board,  it  could  not 
acquiesce  in  the  action  of  the  Assembly  of  1891.  There  is 
no  spirit  of  revolt  or  rebellion  behind  this  action,  but  a 
serious,  earnest,  profound  desire  to  be  faithful  to  obliga- 
tions assumed   in  the  sight  of  God  and  men,   and  to  do 


176  TRIAL  OF   DR.  BRIGGS. 

without  fear  or  favor  what  conscience   dictated  in  obedi- 
ence to  those  obligations. 

"  Please  understand  that  I  am  not  apologizing  for  the 
board  of  directors  of  Union  Seminary,  and  that  I  am  not 
putting  in  any  plea  for  the  mitigation  of  judgment. 
Nothing  is  further  from  my  desire.  I  simply  desired  to 
make  it  plain  to  you,  if  I  could,  that  from  their  point  of 
view  the  directors  of  the  seminary  have  acted  in  a  straight- 
forward, consistent,  honorable,  and  faithful  manner  with 
reference  to  the  interests  of  that  seminary  which  were 
legalty  committed  to  them,  and  to  them  alone. " 

One  of  the  incidental  circumstances  emphasized  by 
the  prosecution  and  that  had  weight  with  many  mem- 
bers of  the  Assembly  in  deciding-  them  to  vote  for  the 
condemnation  of  the  views  of  Dr.  Briggs  was  the  fact 
that  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  in  acquitting  him  of 
heresy,  seemed  to  them  to  condemn  his  views.  The 
language  referred  to  in  the  Presbytery's  decision  is  as 
follows :  — 

u  Therefore,  without  expressing  approval  of  the  criti- 
cal or  theological  views  embodied  in  the  inaugural 
address,  or  the  manner  in  which  they  have  been  expressed 
and  illustrated,  the  presbytery  pronounces  the  Rev. 
Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  fully  acquitted  of  the  offences 
alleged  against  him." 

A  little  reflection  will  satisfy  any  one  that  this  lan- 
guage of  the  presbytery  did  not  necessarily  imply  any 
condemnation  of  Dr.  Briggs'  views.  There  were  other 
considerations  besides  the  soundness  or  unsoundness 


DECISIONS  AND  PROTESTS.  177 

of  the  views  in  question,  which  made  it  prudent  for 
the  presbytery  to  express  no  approval  of  them. 

The  views  in  question  were  in  some  instances  extra- 
Confessional ;  nothing  had  been  formulated  in  the 
Westminster  standards  regarding  them,  —  as  for  ex- 
ample, in  the  case  of  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch, 
and  the  book  of  Isaiah.  This  being  so,  the  presby- 
tery would  have  been  out  of  its  sphere  had  it 
expressed  approval  of  them.  It  may  be  questioned 
if  even  a  General  Assembly  could  properly  assume 
such  a  prerogative.  It  is  not  by  vote  of  any  single 
church  court,  but  by  the  conjoint  action  of  presby- 
teries, that  doctrines  can  be  formulated  as  doctrines 
of  the  church. 

Then  there  are  many  views  which  an  orthodox 
minister  may  hold  and  teach,  which  come  in  conflict 
with  no  doctrine  taught  in  the  Word  of  God,  or  formu- 
lated in  the  standards  of  the  church,  but  which  other 
Presbyterian  ministers,  whether  in  their  individual 
capacity  or  acting  as  members  of  a  church  court, 
would  be  unwilling  to  endorse. 

Suppose  that  a  minister  is  charged  with  heresy  for 
holding  and  teaching  "free  trade"  views.  When  his 
brethren  come  to  examine  his  views,  they  will  find 
nothing  in  either  the  Word  of  God  or  the  standards 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  with  which  his  teaching 
is  in  conflict.  They  will  accordingly  pronounce  him 
fully  acquitted  of  the  charge  of  heresy,  but  they  will 
be  careful  to  insert  the  clause,  "  without  expressing 
approval  of  the  views  in  question." 

Probably  the  reason  which  influenced  some  of  the 
12 


178  TRIAL  ok   DR.  BRIGGS. 

members  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York  to  express 
no  approval  of  the  views  for  which  Dr.  Briggs  had 
been  put  on  trial  was  because  they  felt  that  they  had 
not  given  the  views  in  question  sufficient  study.  They 
understood  them  well  enough  to  see  that  they  were 
not  in  conflict  with  any  vital  doctrine,  but  had  not 
mastered  them  so  completely  as  to  make  them  part  of 
their  own  thinking, —  their  own  independent  belief. 
All  must  see  that  under  such  circumstances  it  would 
have  been  unwise  for  intelligent  and  independent  men 
to  as  much  as  let  it  lie  thought  that  they  expressed 
their  personal  approval  of  ihe  views  in  question. 

[f  it  be  claimed  that  the  members  of  the  court 
of  the  presbytery  could  not,  intelligently  acquit  Dr. 
Briggs,  and  declare  that  his  views  wen;  not  in  con- 
flict with  any  vital  doctrine,  if  they  did  not  so  master 
his  views  as  to  make  them  part  of  their  own  thinking, 
then  may  it  also  he  claimed  that  the  members  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  church  could  not  intelligently 
condemn  Dr.  Briggs  and  declare  that  his  views  were 
in  conflict  with  vital  doctrine,  if  they  did  not  so  mas- 
ter them  as  to  make  them  part  of  their  own  thinking. 
And  who  will  claim  that  the  views  of  Dr.  Briggs  were 
thus  mastered  by  the  majority  of  the  ministers  and 
ruling  elders  in  the  assembly,  in  the  brief  time,  and 
under  the  peculiar  circumstances,  in  which  they  were 
considered  ? 

In  any  case,  if  the  deliverance  of  a  general  assem- 
bly in  a  heresy  trial  were  simply  an  expression  of  the 
opinions  of  a  majority  of  its  members,  without,  their 
having  made  themselves  thoroughly  acquainted  with 


DECISIONS  AND  PROTESTS.  179 

all  the  facts  of  the  case  and  all  the  doctrines  in  ques- 
tion, such  opinions  might  he  of  hut  little  value. 

Even  if,  in  the  opinion  of  the  members  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  the  views  of  Dr.  Briggs  were 
incorrect,  this  could  not  of  itself  be  equivalent  to  a 
condemnation  of  his  views  as  heretical.  The  General 
Assembly  of  1824,  in  pointing  out  to  the  Synod  of 
Kentucky  that  a  wrong  had  been  done  in  condemning 
Mr.  Craighead  because  of  his  "  perverting,  etc.,  the 
sentiments  of  the  preachers  and  writers  in  our  con- 
nection," said  :  "  In  our  connection  there  are  a  multi- 
tude of  preachers  and  writers  differing  by  many  shades 
of  opinion  from  each  other.  How  then  can  this  be  a 
just  ground  of  accusation  ? "    (Moore's  Digest,  p.  578.) 


180  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BKIGGS. 


CHAPTER   XII. 

THE    WRONG    AND    ITS    REMEDY. 

THE  foregoing  review  has  not  dealt  with  the  pro- 
longed discussion  in  the  Washington  Assembly 

on  the  question  of  jurisdiction  and  procedure,  —  not 
because  that  question  was  not  important  or  had  not 
a  vital  connection  with  the  proper  issuing  of  the  case, 
but  because  it  was  of  less  importance  than  the  discus- 
sion of  the  merits  of  the  ease,  and  also  because  the 
necessarily  protracted  discussion  of  it  seemed  both  to 
weary  the  court  before  the  merits  of  the  case  were 
reached,  and  in  various  ways  obscure  the  real  issue. 

As  the  court,  in  the  exercise  of  its  discretion,  saw 
fit  to  pass  by  the  Synod  of  New  York  and  try  the 
case  on  a  direct  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  pres- 
bytery, all  that  need  be  remarked  here  is  that  in  thus 
exercising  its  discretion,  the  Assembly  did  not  act  in 
accordance  with  a  precedent  established  in  1810  in 
the  Bourne  case,  to  the  effect  that  when  it  is  discre- 
tionary as  to  whether  a  case  shall  be  transferred  from 
the  presbytery  to  the  synod  or  directly  to  the  General 
Assembly,  the  wishes  of  the  accused  shall  be  respected, 
and  lie  shall  be  tried  by  the  court  he  prefers.  (See 
Moore's  Digest,  p.  555.)  It  is  true  also  that,  in  refus- 
ing to  accede  to  Dr.  Briggs'  wish  to  be  first  tried  by 


THE   WRONG  AND  ITS  REMEDY.  181 

the  synod,  the  Assembly  deprived  him  of  the  right  of 
complaint,  and  that  at  a  time  when  complaint  of  his 
against  action  of  the  presbytery  was  already  pending 
before  the  Synod  of  New  York. 

Another  grave  question  raised  by  the  defendant  and 
set  aside  by  the  Assembly  was  as  to  the  legality  of 
entertaining  an  appeal  against  a  verdict  of  acquittal 
in  any  case,  and  putting  a  man  on  trial  for  his  eccle- 
siastical life  a  second  time.  But  this  question  need 
not  be  discussed  here. 

The  gravest  question  as  to  procedure  presented  by 
the  defendant  and  overborne  by  the  Assembly  was 
not  in  connection  with  the  discussion  of  the  question 
of  jurisdiction,  but  in  the  discussion  of  the  merits  of 
the  case;  namely,  tin:  disregarding  of  an  important 
precedent  established  in  1824,  in  the  Craighead 
case.  The  principle  laid  down  in  that  precedent 
was  expressed  in  the  following  explicit  terms :  — 

"  A  man  cannot  fairly  be  convicted  of  heresy  for  using 
expressions  which  may  be  so  interpreted  as  to  involve 
heretical  doctrines,  if  they  may  also  admit  of  a  more 
favorable;  construction;  because  no  one  can  tell  in  what 
sense  an  ambiguous  expression  is  used  but  the  speaker  or 
writer,  and  he  has  a  right  to  explain  himself;  and  in  such 
cases  candor  requires  that  a  court  should  favor  the  accused 
by  putting  on  his  words  the  more  favorable  rather  than 
the  less  favorable  construction. 

"Another  principle  is  that  no  man  can  rightly  be 
convicted  of  heresy  by  inference  or  implication;  that  is, 
we  must  not  charge  an  accused  person  with  holding  those 
consequences  which  may  legitimately  flow  from  his   asser- 


182  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

tions.  Many  men  are  grossly  inconsistent  with  them- 
selves; and  while  it  is  right  in  argument  to  overthrow 
false  opinions  by  tracing  them  in  their  connections  and 
consequences,  it  is  not  right  to  charge  any  man  with  an 
opinion  which  he  disavows."     (Moore's  Digest,  p.  224.) 

Not  only  did  the  Washington  Assembly  disregard  this 
precedent,  but  the  Prosecuting  Committee,  through 
one  of  their  number,  Dr.  Birch,  went  so  far  as  to  cast 
slight  upon  it  —  not  to  say  upon  the  Assemblies  by 
which  it  had  been  instituted  and  respected  —  by 
boldly  affirming  with  reference  to  it  that  "  the  posi- 
tion that  a  man  cannot  be  condemned  on  an  infer- 
ence, even  though  it  be  a  necessary  inference,  is  a 
false  one." 

To  the  disregard  of  the  principles  laid  down  in  the 
above  precedent,  the  suspension  of  Dr.  Briggs  from 
the  gospel  ministry  is  wholly  due.  Had  the  Assembly 
not  convicted  Dr.  Briggs  of  heresy  by  inference  or 
implication,  and  by  charging  him  with  opinions  which 
he  disavows,  it  could  not  have  convicted  him  at  all. 
Had  a  presbytery  or  synod  convicted  him  in  the 
same  way,  on  his  appealing  to  the  General  Assembly 
the  Assembly  would  have  been  bound  to  reverse  the 
decision  of  the  lower  court,  or  else  depart  from  what 
has  been  the  well-established  policy  of  the  church  in 
the  past,  as  may  be  seen  by  referring  to  the  action  of 
the  supreme  court  of  the  church  in  the  two  following 
important  cases. 

Mr.  Craighead  was  suspended  from  the  gospel 
ministry  on  a  decision  of   the  Synod  of   Kentucky, 


THE   WROXG  AND  ITS  REMEDY.  183 

based  upon  inference  or  implication,  and  although 
there  were  several  particulars  in  his  conduct  which 
the  Assembly  severely  condemned,  the  decision  of 
the  synod  was  reversed,  and  Mr.  Craighead  was  re- 
stored by  the  Presbytery  of  West  Tennessee,  acting 
under  the  Assembly's  instructions.  (Moore's  Digest, 
p.  225.) 

The  following  extracts  from  the  Assembly's  deliv- 
erance in  the  case  may  serve  to  illustrate  the  applica- 
tion of  the  above  principles  :  — 

"Mr.  Craighead  may  be  understood  as  teaching  that 
the  only  real  agency  of  the  Spirit  was  in  inspiring  the 
Scriptures  and  confirming  them  by  signs  and  miracles. 
There  is  much  in  his  discourse  that  has  this  bearing,  and 
undoubtedly  this  is  the  common  impression  among  the 
people  where  it  is  best  known.  This  was  the  idea  of  the 
Synod  of  Kentucky  when  they  condemned  him,  and  this 
is  in  fact  denying  the  operation  of  the  Spirit  in  our  days; 
and  whether  his  expressions  have  been  fairly  interpreted 
or  not;  they  are  dangerous  and  ought  to  be  condemned. 
In  justice  to  Mr.  Craighead,  however,  it  ought  to  be 
remembered  that  he  utterly  disclaims  this  meaning  in  his 
defence  set  up  to  this  Assembly;  and  would  it  be  fair  to 
continue  to  charge  upon  him  opinions  which  he  solemnly 
disavows  ?  Of  the  sincerity  of  his  disavowal  God  is  the 
judge.  The  conclusion  is  that  the  first  charge,  though 
supported  by  strong  probabilities,  is  not  so  conclusively 
established  as  to  remove  all  doubt,  because  the  words 
adduced  in  proof  will  bear  a  different  construction  from 
that  put  upon  them  bj^  the  presbytery  and  synod. 

"  The  evidence  in  support  of  the  second  charge  is  still 
less   clear  and  conclusive.     The   charge  is :  — 


184  TRIAL   OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

"'We  charge  him  with  denying,  vilifying,  and  mis- 
representing the  doctrine  of  Divine  foreordmation  and 
sovereignty  and   election.' 

"It  might,  perhaps,  be  shown  by  argument  that  Mr. 
Craighead  uses  many  expressions  not  consistent  with 
these  doctrines;  hut  agreeably  to  the  principle  laid  down 
above,  he  must  not  be  charged  with  holding  these  conse- 
quences unless  he  has  avowed  them.''  (Moore's  Digest, 
pp.  224.  225.) 

Twelve  years  after  the  establishing  of  the  above 
precedent,  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  disregarded  it 
in  the  celebrated  case  of  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes.  In 
reversing  the  synod's  decision,  the  General  Assembly 
pointed  out  the  distinctions  which  the  synod  had 
overlooked  in  relying  upon  the  inferences  they  had 
drawn  from  Mr.  Barnes'  language.  There  is  a  close 
parallel  between  the  Barnes  case  and  the  Briggs  case 
in  this  particular,  that  both  of  these  defendants  were 
condemned  on  a  misunderstanding  of  terms  and  their 
application,  and  on  the  teaching  of  extra-Confessional, 
not  contra-Confessional  opinions,  as  a  comparison  of 
the  record  of  the  trial  of  Dr.  Briggs  with  the  following 
extracts  from  the  deliverance  of  the  Assembly  in  the 
Barnes  case  will  show  :  — 

••  Resolved,  That  the  decision  of  the  Synod  of  Philadel- 
phia, suspending  Rev.  Albert  Barnes  from  all  the  functions 
proper  to  the  gospel  ministry  be  and  it  hereby  is  reversed." 
[Yeas,  145;  nays.  78:  declined  voting,  11.] 

In  reply  to  two  protests  which  were  presented  the 
Assembly  made  the  following  statements  as  to  the 
doctrines  involved :  — 


THE   WRONG  AND  ITS  REMEDY.  185 

"  The  correctness  of  the  preceding  positions  is  confirmed, 
in  the  opinion  of  the  Assembly,  by  a  careful  analysis  of  the 
real  meaning  of  Mr.  Barnes  under  each  charge,  as  ascer- 
tained by  the  language  of  his  book  and  the  revisions,  dis- 
claimers, explanations,  and  declarations  which  he  has  made. 

"  In  respect  to  the  first  charge,  that  Mr.  Barnes  teaches 
that  all  sin  is  voluntary,  the  context  and  his  own  declara- 
tions show  that  he  refers  to  all  actual  sin  merely,  in  which 
he  affirms  the  sinner  acts  under  no  compulsion. 

"The  second  charge  implies  neither  heresy  nor  errors, 
but  relates  to  the  expression  of  an  opinion  on  a  matter  con- 
cerning which  no  definite  instruction  is  contained  either 
in  the  Bible  or  in  the  Confession  of  Faith. 

"In  respect  to  the  third  charge  Mr.  Barnes  has  not 
taught  that  unregenerate  men  are  able,  in  the  sense 
alleged,  to  keep  the  commandments  and  convert  them- 
selves to  God.  It  is  an  inference  of  the  prosecutor  from 
the  doctrine  of  natural  ability  as  taught  by  Edwards,  and 
of  the  natural  liberty  of  the  will  as  taught  in  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,  chap,  ix.,  sec.  i.  On  the  contrary,  he  does 
teach,  in  accordance  with  our  standards,  that  man  by  the 
fall,  hath  wholly  lost  all  ability  of  will  to  any  spiritual 
good  accompanying  salvation. 

"  In  respect  to  the  fourth  charge,  that  faith  is  an  act  of 
the  mind,  Mr.  Barnes  does  teach  it,  in  accordance  with 
the  Confession  of  Faith  and  the  Bible;  but  he  does  not 
deny  that  faith  is  a  fruit  of  the  special  influence  of  the 
Spirit,  and  a  permanent  holy  habit  of  mind,  in  opposition  to 
a  created  physical  essence.  That  faith  is  '  counted  for 
righteousness  '  is  the  language  of  the  Bible,  and  as  used 
by  Mr.  Barnes  moans,  not  that  faith  is  the  meritorious 
ground  of  justification,  but  only  the  instrument  by  which 
the  benefit  of  Christ's  righteousness  is  appropriated. 


186  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

1  'In  respect  to  the  fifth  charge  Mr.  Barnes  nowhere 
denies,  much  less  at  the  idea  that  Adam  was  the 

nant  and  federal  head  of  hi>  posterity;  on  the  con- 
trary though  he  employs  not  these  terms,  he  does,  in  other 
language  teach  the  same  truths  which  are  taught  by  this 
phraseology. 

"  In  respect  to  the  sixth  and  seventh  charges,  that  the 
sin  of  Adam  is  not  imputed  to  his  posterity,  and  that 
mankind  are  not  guilty  or  liable  to  punishment  on  account 
of  the  first  sin  of  Adam,  it  i.s  to  he  observed  that  it  is  not 
taught  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  that  the  sia  of  Adam  is 
imputed  to  his  posterity.  The  imputation  of  the  fju'dt  of 
Adam's  sin,  Mr.  Barnes  affirms,  though  not  as  including 
personal  identity  and  the  transfer  of  moral  qualities,  both 
of  which  are  disclaimed  by  our  standard  writers  and  by 
the  General  Assembly. 

"In  respect  to  the  eighth  charge,  that  Christ  did  not 
suffer  the  penalty  of  the  law,  as  the  vicarious  substitute  of 
His  people,  Mr.  Barnes  only  denies  the  literal  infliction 
of  the  whole  curse,  as  including  remorse  of  conscience  and 
eternal  death,  but  admits  and  teaches  that  the  suffer- 
ings of  Christ,  owing  to  the  union  of  the  Divine  and 
human  natures  in  the  person  of  the  Mediator,  were  a  full 
equivalent. 

"  In  respect  to  the  ninth  charge,  that  the  righteousness 
of  Christ  is  not  imputed  to  His  people,  Mr.  Barnes  teaches 
the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  but  re- 
importing a  transfer  of  Christ's  personal  righteous 
believers,  which  is  not  the  doctrine  of  our  church.  And 
when  he  says  that  there  is  no  sense  in  which  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ  becomes  ours,  the  context  and  his  own 
declarations  show  that  he  simply  means  to  deny  a  literal 
transfer  of  His  obedience;     which,    on  the   contrary,   he 


THE  WRONG  AND  ITS  REMEDY.  187 

teaches  is  so  imputed  or  set  to  our  account  as  to  become 
the  only  meritorious  cause  or  ground  of  our  justification. 

"In  respect  to  the  tenth  charge,  Mr.  Barnes  has  not 
taught  that  justification  consists  in  pardon  only,  but  has 
tan glit  clearly  that  it  includes  the  reception  of  believers 
into  favor,  and  their  treatment  as  if  they  had  not  sinned." 
(Moore's  digest,  pp.  226-227.) 

Had  the  Assembly  of  1893  observed  distinctions  of 
terms  and  made  "  a  careful  analysis  of  the  real  mean- 
ing of  Dr.  Briggs  under  each  charge,"  as  the  Assembly 
of  1836  did  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes,  the  verdict  of 
acquittal  by  the  New  York  Presbytery  would  have 
been  sustained  by  the  Washington  Assembly. 

Upon  a  calm  and  impartial  review  of  the  whole  case, 
one  cannot  but  regret  that  this  course  was  not  taken. 
It  would  have  saved  the  Church  and  the  world  the 
peril  which  must  arise  from  the  General  Assembly  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  declar- 
ing in  effect  that  one  of  the  ablest  Biblical  scholars, 
if  not  the  very  ablest,  in  that  great  church,  has,  as 
the  result  of  over  twenty  years  of  special  study  and  re- 
search, come  to  the  following  conclusions :  (1)  That 
the  human  reason  and  the  Church  are  of  equal  author- 
ity with  the  Bible,  and  are  in  themselves  sources  of 
salvation  (doctrines  which  Dr.  Brigga  has  neither  held 
nor  taught).  (2)  That  the  Bible  is  not  the  inspired 
Word  of  God  (a  conclusion  which  Dr.  Briggs  utterly 
repudiates).  (3)  That  many  of  those  who  die  in  sin 
may  be  regenerated  and  saved  in  the  middle  state  (a 
doctrine  which  Dr.  Briggs  distinctly  declares  he  has 


188  TKIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

not  found  in  the  Word  of  God,  and  therefore  can  nei- 
ther accept  nor  teach). 

To  publish  to  the  world  that  a  Christian  scholar  of 
the  well-known  ability  of  Dr.  Briggs  lias  reached  such 
conclusions  as  these,  is  to  put  a  weapon  in  the  hands 
of  the  foes  of  saving  truth  which  they  will  use  with 
tremendous  effect  in  destroying-  the  confidence  of  many 
in  the  Word  of  God.  They  will  say,  "Oh  yes!  The 
great  mass  of  the  membership  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  believe  so  and  so,  but  here  is  the  opinion  of  an 
expert,  whose  opinion  is  worth  more  than  the  opinions 
of  all  less  scholarly  persons  put  together." 

It  was  alleged  as  an  offence  that  the  views  of  Dr. 
Briggs  were  being  "  industriously  spread."  But  alas  ! 
unintentionally  indeed,  yet  none  the  less  truly,  the 
false  views  attributed  to  Dr.  Briggs  are  being  a  thou- 
sand times  more  industriously  spread  through  the 
action  of  those  who  have  mistakenly  opposed  him. 

The  sooner  the  world  is  assured  that  Dr.  Briggs 
docs  not  either  hold  or  teach  a  single  one  of  the  heret- 
ical doctrines  for  the  alleged  holding  of  which  he 
has  been  condemned  and  suspended  from  the  gospel 
ministry,  the  better  for  the  Church  and  for  the  world 
at  large. 

The  injury  done  has  not  been  mainly  the  discour- 
aging of  ministers,  young  men  and  others  in  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  from  a  critical  study  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  or  the  inciting  of  them  to  pursue  such 
study  in  a  spirit  of  hostility  to  the  Church  ;  nor  has 
it  been  mainly  that  it  has  exposed  the  Presbyterian 
Church  to  the  loss  of  influence  for  good  through  a 


THE    WRONG  AND  ITS   REMEDY.  189 

loss  of  prestige  as  a  church  which  has  always  been 
prepared  to  settle  questions  that  have  arisen  regard- 
ing the  truth,  on  the  basis  of  the  broadest  and  most 
accurate  intelligence,  and  not  on  the  ground  of  tradi- 
tion and  popular  opinion. 

I  cannot  say  that  an  injury  has  been  done  to  Union 
Theological  Seminary ;  for  intelligent  young  men, 
looking  toward  the  ministry,  will  judge  for  themselves, 
from  their  knowledge  of  the  merits  of  the  case,  and 
will  be  likely  to  declare  themselves  in  favor  of  liberty 
to  think. 

Xor  has  the  wrong  done  been  simply  a  wrong  to 
Dr.  Briggs.  He  may  be  able  to  endure  to  be  misun- 
derstood. His  consciousness  of  having  to  endure  this 
may  itself  be  a  source  of  comfort  to  him.  He  may 
look  unto  One  infinitely  greater  than  all  earth's  di- 
vines, Who  was  charged  with  being  a  blasphemer  and 
condemned  by  the  leaders  of  the  orthodox  Church  of 
His  day,  and  may  feel  that  in  having  to  bear  a  like 
cross  after  Him  he  is  infinitely  honored.  He  may  be 
cheered  too  by  the  conviction  that  the  time  will  not 
be  long  in  coining  when  his  views  will  be  better  under- 
stood. 

But  whatever  wrong  may  have  been  done  to  Dr. 
Briggs,  or  to  the  seminary  in  which  he  is  a  much 
esteemed  teacher,  or  to  the  consciences  of  brethren  in 
the  Presbyterian  Church  near  and  far  who  feel  that 
the  Church  which  they  love  and  truths  that  are  dear 
to  their  hearts  have  been  alike  misrepresented,  the 
great  wrong  done  is  that  the  truth  has  not  been 
brought  out  and  made  to  shine.     On  the  contrary, 


190  TRIAL  OF  DR   BRIGGS. 

error  has  been  honored  and  magnified  by  being  bidden 
to  quote,  as  on  its  side,  a  great  Biblical  scholar  born 
and  educated  in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  If  any  one 
thing  more  than  another  grieves  Dr.  Briggs,  it  must 
be  that  in  spite  of  all  his  arguments,  explanations, 
and  solemn  protestations  to  the  contrary,  his  oppo- 
nents have  persisted  in  representing  to  the  world  that 
the  result  of  all  his  scholarship  and  years  of  special 
study  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  has  been  to  lead  him  to 
teach  that  the  Bible  is  not  the  infallible  Word  of  God, 
and  to  cause  him  to  disregard  its  authority  and  to  do 
despite  unto  the  Saviour  whom  the  Bible  reveals. 

This  is  indeed  a  painful  position  in  which  to  place 
one  who  loves  the  Lord,  who  loves  the  Bible  as  His 
inspired  Word,  who  rejoices  in  Christ,  and  has  no 
confidence  in  the  flesh,  but  hates  error  in  all  its 
forms.  Yet  this  is  the  effect  of  the  suspension  of 
Dr.  Briggs  from  the  gospel  ministry  on  the  charges 
preferred  against  him. 

Is  there  no  relief  from  such  a  position  ?  There  is. 
Tt  will  be  competent  for  another  General  Assembly, 
after  due  investigation,  to  say  that  the  circumstances 
surrounding  the  trial  of  Dr.  Briggs  were  such  as  pre- 
vented the  Assembly  at  Washington  from  being  in 
proper  possession  of  all  the  facts  and  arguments  pre- 
sented, and  that,  as  the  result,  Dr.  Briggs  was  con- 
demned for  holding  heretical  views,  which  he  solemnly 
disavows,  and  for  holding  extra-Confessional  views, 
which  were  only  supposed  to  be  heretical ;  and  that 
on  a  more  minute  and  extended  examination  of  the 
evidence  and  arguments  in  the  case  than  it  was  pos- 


THE  WRONG  AND  ITS   REMEDY.  191 

sible  for  the  Assembly  at  Washington  to  make,  it  has 
been  found  that  the  accused  did  not  either  hold  or 
teach  heretical  views,  and  that  therefore  he  be  relieved 
of  the  sentence  passed  upon  him. 

But  can  a  General  Assembly  correct  errors  into 
which  a  preceding  Assembly  may  have  fallen  ?  It 
would  be  unfortunate  for  the  Presbyterian  form  of 
government  if  it  could  not.  An  Assembly  not  only 
can  reverse  the  decision  of  a  preceding  Assembly,  but 
has  repeatedly  done  this. 

The  Assembly  of  1822  found  that  the  Assembly  of 
1811  had  erred  in  a  decision  it  rendered  in  connection 
with  the  Craighead  case,  and  accordingly  reversed 
that  decision,  the  result  of  which  was  that  Mr.  Craig- 
head, who  had  been  suspended  from  the  ministry,  was 
restored.     (Moore's  Digest,  p.  586). 

The  Assembly  of  1864,  N.S.,on  being  memorialized 
by  the  Synod  of  Onondaga,  reversed  a  decision  of  the 
past  Assembly  on  two  grounds :  (1)  "  that  the  last 
Assembly  seemed  to  have  acted  without  such  a  knowl- 
edge of  all  the  facts  of  the  case  as  a  regular  presen- 
tation of  the  complaint  and  the  records  would  have 
given  them  ; "  and  (2)  on  the  ground  that  they  had 
overlooked  the  principle  that  the  discretion  of  a  court 
is  not  a  matter  of  review  by  the  General  Assembly. 
(Moore's  Digest,  p.  533.) 

It  will  be  competent  therefore  for  a  synod,  presby- 
tery, session,  or  single  individual  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  to  memori- 
alize the  next  or  some  subsequent  General  Assembly, 
praying  that  Dr.  Briggs  be  relieved  of  the  sentence 


192  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

of  suspension  passed  upon  him  ;  and  the  memorial 
may  assign  valid  reasons,  which  need  cast  no  reflec- 
tion upon  either  the  last  or  any  preceding  Assembly. 
The  Westminster  Confession  intends  no  reflection 
when  it  says  (chap,  xxxi.,  sec.  iv.) :  "All  synods 
or  councils  since  the  Apostles'  times,  whether  gene- 
ral or  particular,  may  err,  and  many  have  erred  ; 
therefore  they  are  not  to  be  made  the  rule  of  faith  or 
practice,  but  to  be  used  as  an  help  in  both." 


CLOSING   SUMMARY.  198 


CHAPTER   XIII. 

CLOSING     SUMMARY. 

AS  a  lover  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  though  a 
stranger  alike  to  Dr.  Briggs,  the  prosecution,  and 
the  members  of  the  Washington  Assembly,  and  hav- 
ing no  personal  interest  whatever  in  the  issue  of  this 
case,  I  have  this  testimony  to  bear  as  the  result  of 
having  heard  the  whole  case  discussed  in  the  Assem- 
bly at  Washington,  and  thereafter  having  carefully 
reviewed  all  the  evidence  and  arguments  as  contained 
in  the  official  report  of  the  Assembly  :  — 

1.  That  while  the  language  used  by  Dr.  Briggs  in 
speaking  of  the  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason  as 
three  great  fountains  of  Divine  authority,  seemed 
at  first  to  convey  an  idea  which  as  an  orthodox  Pres- 
byterian I  could  not  accept,  a  more  careful  reading  of 
the  argument  of  Dr.  Briggs,  together  with  the  explan- 
ations made  by  him  before  the  Assembly,  lias  made 
it  perfectly  clear  that  his  views  in  regard  to  the 
authority  of  the  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason 
are  eminently  Scriptural  and  in  entire  accord  with 
the  doctrines  of  the  Westminster  Confession  and 
Catechisms. 

2.  That  while  Dr.  Briggs  holds,  in  common  with 
all    orthodox    scholars    and    divines,   that    errors    of 

l.-; 


194  TRIAL  OF  DR.  BRIGGS. 

various  kinds  arc  faithfully  recorded  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  he  at  the  same  time  holds  firmly  to  the 
doctrine  of  plenary  inspiration,  and  believes  that  such 
recorded  errors  do  not  in  any  way  interfere  with  the 
doctrine  that  the  Bible  is  the  only  infallible  rule  of 
faith  and  practice,  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  when, 
through  a  right  understanding  of  the  consent  of  all 
the  parts,  the  Bible's  teaching  is  ascertained,  it  is  seen 
to  be  in  truth  the  inspired  Word,  the  revelation  of  the 
mind  and  will  of  God, 

3.  That  while,  in  common  with  many  orthodox 
scholars  and  divines,  Dr.  Briggs  believes  that  Moses 
was  not  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  as  a  whole,  and 
that  Isaiah  did  not  write  one  half  of  the  book  that 
bears  his  name  ;  and  while  in  this  he  differs  from  the 
popular  and  traditional  opinion  regarding  the  author- 
ship of  these  portions  of  Holy  Scripture,  he  does  not 
differ  from  anything  taught  in  the  Word  of  God,  or 
the  Westminster  standards ;  nor  does  he  hold  those 
views  in  such  a  way  as  to  lessen  his  reverence  for 
those  parts  of  Scripture  as  the  inspired  Word  of  God, 
or  to  cause  him  to  question  any  of  the  statements 
made  either  in  them  or  in  other  parts  of  Scripture 
regarding  these  six  books  or  the  persons  commonly 
regarded  as  their  authors,  but,  on  the  contrary,  his 
reverence  for  those  parts  of  Scripture,  and  the  Word 
of  God  as  a  whole,  is  increased. 

4.  That  while  Dr.  Briggs  holds  what  is  called  the 
doctrine  of  progressive  sanctification  after  death,  in 
opposition  to  instantaneous  perfection  at  the  moment 
of  death,  his  views,  when  analyzed,  are  found  to  be 


CLOSING   SUMMARY.  195 

in  substantial  agreement  with  those  of  all  orthodox 
Christians,  the  difference  being  mainly  in  the  terms 
used  and  not  at  all  in  the  essential  truth  that  all 
believers  at  death  pass  immediately  into  the  presence 
of  Christ,  into  a  state  of  exalted  blessedness,  although 
they  do  not  attain  to  the  highest  blessedness  until 
after  the  resurrection  and  the  Day  of  Judgment. 

5.  That  with  reference  to  the  two  charges  upon 
which  Dr.  Briggs  has  not  been  tried,  the  first  of  these 
charges  —  namely,  that  many  of  the  Old  Testament 
predictions  have  been  reversed  by  history,  and  that 
the  great  body  of  Messianic  prediction  has  not  been  and 
cannot  be  fulfilled  —  is  based  upon  a  misunderstand- 
ing of  language  and  arguments  used  by  Dr.  Briggs, 
and  charges  him  with  holding  views  which  are  directly 
opposed  to  the  views  he  does  hold,  and  which  he  has 
taught  for  years  with  great  ability  and  clearness. 

With  regard  to  the  second  of  these  two  "  rejected 
charges,"  —  namely,  that  the  processes  of  redemption 
extend  to  the  world  to  come  in  the  case  of  many  who 
die  in  sin,  —  this  charge  is  also  based  upon  a  misunder- 
standing of  language  and  arguments  used  by  Dr. 
Briggs,  and  charges  him  with  holding  views  which  he 
has  distinctly  declared  that  he  does  not  hold,  and  has 
not  found  in  all  his  searching  of  the  Word  of  God. 

My  deep  conviction  is  that  Dr.  Briggs  has  not  been 
justly  convicted  of  heresy,  but  that,  on  the  contrary, 
he  has  been  condemned  and  suspended  from  the  min- 
istry for  deducing  sound  doctrines  from  the  Word  of 
God,  —  doctrines  which  are  contrary  to  nothing  con- 
tained in  the  Westminster  standards,  although  they 


DB    BRIG 

not  all  be  found  formulated  in  those  standai 
and  for  man  a  willingness  to  accept  and  teach 

Scripture  1 

.  although  it  may  not  be  found  in 
and  council*,  ti 

faded  ;   and  in  this  he  is  in 
b  the  W(  j, — 

cha|  The  supreme 

judge  by  which  all  contr  i  be 

mined,  and  all  dec:  councils,  opinions 

•  -nt  writers,  docti  men,  and  private  spii 

aed  and 
i  be  no  other  but  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking 

-     ■         n 

inglj  d  to 

break  the  law  :  neither  will  the   P  ian  Church. 

When  the  real  position  - 

..  the  P  burch  in  the  United 

•    doubt,  accord    I 
edly  entitled,  and  re- 


